Katz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. City of New York

281 A.D.2d 151, 721 N.Y.S.2d 509, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1905

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 151 (Katz v. City of New York) 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

Katz v. City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 151, 721 N.Y.S.2d 509, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, denied defendant-appellant sidewalk contractor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The contractor’s president stated at deposition that the relevant contract is in its possession and would show whether it performed work at the location where plaintiff fell, yet, it never produced the contract. The failure to do so gives plaintiff and codefendant City an acceptable excuse for not having tendered evidentiary proof in admissible form countering the affidavit of the contractor’s supervisor that the contractor did not perform work at the site where plaintiff fell (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Concur—Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, denied defendant-appellant sidewalk contractor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The contractor’s president stated at deposition that the relevant contract is in its possession and would show whether it performed work at the location where plaintiff fell, yet, it never produced the contract. The failure to do so gives plaintiff and codefendant City an acceptable excuse for not having tendered evidentiary proof in admissible form countering the affidavit of the contractor’s supervisor that the contractor did not perform work at the site where plaintiff fell (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Concur—Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 151, 721 N.Y.S.2d 509, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack