Kari R. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kari R. v. New York City Housing Authority

122 A.D.3d 526, 997 N.Y.S.2d 389

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2014·No. 350060/10·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered March 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to strike what it contended was plaintiffs’ new theory of liability and the proffered testimony of plaintiffs’ expert at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising from the infant plaintiffs slip and fall in a puddle of urine that defendant, through its agents, left sit *527 ting for days on the landing of the staircase immediately outside plaintiffs’ apartment, the motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs’ expert testimony was a mere amplification of plaintiffs’ consistently pleaded negligence claims, and not a new claim or theory that plaintiffs had failed to specify in their notice of claim (see Portillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered March 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to strike what it contended was plaintiffs’ new theory of liability and the proffered testimony of plaintiffs’ expert at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising from the infant plaintiffs slip and fall in a puddle of urine that defendant, through its agents, left sit *527 ting for days on the landing of the staircase immediately outside plaintiffs’ apartment, the motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs’ expert testimony was a mere amplification of plaintiffs’ consistently pleaded negligence claims, and not a new claim or theory that plaintiffs had failed to specify in their notice of claim (see Portillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 84 AD3d 535, 536 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Kari R. v. New York City Housing Authority, 122 A.D.3d 526, 997 N.Y.S.2d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 526 (Kari R. v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related