Jimenez v. T.J. Maxx, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. T.J. Maxx, Inc.

17 A.D.3d 638, 792 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4388

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

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 638 (Jimenez v. T.J. Maxx, Inc.) 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. T.J. Maxx, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 638, 792 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 10, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the allegedly defective condition upon which the plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell, nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Bynum v Salter, 14 AD3d 582 [2005]; Vera v Fishman, 14 AD3d 550 [2005]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). The affidavit she submitted in opposition to the motion raised feigned factual issues designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony (see Semple v Sterling Estates, 300 AD2d 297 [2002]; Regina v Friedman, 272 AD2d 461 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 10, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the allegedly defective condition upon which the plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell, nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Bynum v Salter, 14 AD3d 582 [2005]; Vera v Fishman, 14 AD3d 550 [2005]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). The affidavit she submitted in opposition to the motion raised feigned factual issues designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony (see Semple v Sterling Estates, 300 AD2d 297 [2002]; Regina v Friedman, 272 AD2d 461 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 638, 792 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-tj-maxx-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack