Kontos v. Koakos Syllogos "Ippocrates," Inc.

11 A.D.3d 661, 783 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 661 (Kontos v. Koakos Syllogos "Ippocrates," 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
Kontos v. Koakos Syllogos "Ippocrates," Inc., 11 A.D.3d 661, 783 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated October 24, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, as owner of property adjacent to a public sidewalk, established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to an alleged defect in the public sidewalk (see Romero v City of New York, 5 AD3d 657 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of a witness whose full name and address was sought in the defendant’s notice to produce. In response to the defendant’s notice to produce, the plaintiff claimed she did not know the witness’s surname or whereabouts, which she had been told was somewhere in Greece.

Where a party defends a failure to comply with a notice to produce witness information by claiming that he or she does not possess such information, “failure to provide the information in his [or her] possession would preclude him from later offering proof regarding that information” (Corriel v Volkswagen of Am., 127 AD2d 729, 731 [1987]). As noted by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff offered no explanation for failing to disclose the surname and address of this witness until after the filing of the note of issue. Accordingly, the affidavit was improperly submitted. In any event, the affidavit relied upon speculation.

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs remaining contention that the alleged defect was not trivial need not be addressed. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

I.P. v. Bonilla
2023 NY Slip Op 02528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Ramulic v. State of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Cap Rents Supply, LLC v. Durante
2018 NY Slip Op 8458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Nunez v. Laidlaw
2017 NY Slip Op 4126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Vaz v. New York City Transit Authority
85 A.D.3d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Sagiv v. Gamache
26 A.D.3d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 661, 783 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kontos-v-koakos-syllogos-ippocrates-inc-nyappdiv-2004.