Jimenez v. 470 Audubon Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. 470 Audubon Avenue Corp.

239 A.D.2d 106, 657 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4474

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 106 (Jimenez v. 470 Audubon Avenue Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimenez v. 470 Audubon Avenue Corp., 239 A.D.2d 106, 657 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about April 2, 1996, which, in an action for wrongful death and [107]*107personal injury allegedly caused by inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the motion, which stated that she had been told by several unnamed people that the unapprehended men who broke into her apartment had entered the building through the broken front gate and door and were not residents, guests or employees of the building, and which, it should also be noted, directly contradicted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she could not identify the assailants and did not know how the assailants entered the building or of anyone who did, was properly rejected as hearsay (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Kistoo v City of New York, 195 AD2d 403). The affidavit of the anonymous tenant was also properly rejected for lack of personal knowledge on the part of the affiant that the three men he or she observed were involved in the incident (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra, at 563). There being no proof that the assailants were intruders, or, if intruders, that they were able to enter the building because of defendants’ negligence in maintaining security, the action was properly dismissed (see, Dawson v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 55). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about April 2, 1996, which, in an action for wrongful death and [107]*107personal injury allegedly caused by inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the motion, which stated that she had been told by several unnamed people that the unapprehended men who broke into her apartment had entered the building through the broken front gate and door and were not residents, guests or employees of the building, and which, it should also be noted, directly contradicted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she could not identify the assailants and did not know how the assailants entered the building or of anyone who did, was properly rejected as hearsay (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Kistoo v City of New York, 195 AD2d 403). The affidavit of the anonymous tenant was also properly rejected for lack of personal knowledge on the part of the affiant that the three men he or she observed were involved in the incident (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra, at 563). There being no proof that the assailants were intruders, or, if intruders, that they were able to enter the building because of defendants’ negligence in maintaining security, the action was properly dismissed (see, Dawson v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 55). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 106, 657 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-470-audubon-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack