Latif v. Eugene Smilovic Housing Development Fund Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latif v. Eugene Smilovic Housing Development Fund Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 1164, 147 A.D.3d 507, 47 N.Y.S.3d 33

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2017

Docket308502/12 3100N 3099

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1164 (Latif v. Eugene Smilovic Housing Development Fund Co.) 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

Latif v. Eugene Smilovic Housing Development Fund Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 1164, 147 A.D.3d 507, 47 N.Y.S.3d 33 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered July 10, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a crack in the sidewalk in front of defendant’s building, and fell to the ground. Defendant failed to show that it lacked constructive notice of the defect in the sidewalk, as *508 the record shows that plaintiff testified that she saw the condition that caused her fall about a year earlier, and the photographs taken within a week of the accident depict a condition that a jury might find existed for a sufficient period of time for defendant to have discovered and corrected it (see King v City Bay Plaza, LLC, 118 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2014]; Denyssenko v Plaza Realty Servs., Inc., 8 AD3d 207, 208 [1st Dept 2004]). Although plaintiff’s testimony may contain inconsistencies, credibility issues are not appropriately resolved on a summary judgment motion (see e.g. Santos v Temco Serv. Indus., 295 AD2d 218 [1st Dept 2002]).

Defendant also failed to demonstrate that the defect shown in the photograph and marked at plaintiff’s deposition was, under the circumstances, physically insignificant or that its characteristics or the surrounding circumstances did not increase the risk it posed (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 79 [2015]; King at 476).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered July 10, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a crack in the sidewalk in front of defendant’s building, and fell to the ground. Defendant failed to show that it lacked constructive notice of the defect in the sidewalk, as *508 the record shows that plaintiff testified that she saw the condition that caused her fall about a year earlier, and the photographs taken within a week of the accident depict a condition that a jury might find existed for a sufficient period of time for defendant to have discovered and corrected it (see King v City Bay Plaza, LLC, 118 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2014]; Denyssenko v Plaza Realty Servs., Inc., 8 AD3d 207, 208 [1st Dept 2004]). Although plaintiff’s testimony may contain inconsistencies, credibility issues are not appropriately resolved on a summary judgment motion (see e.g. Santos v Temco Serv. Indus., 295 AD2d 218 [1st Dept 2002]).

Defendant also failed to demonstrate that the defect shown in the photograph and marked at plaintiff’s deposition was, under the circumstances, physically insignificant or that its characteristics or the surrounding circumstances did not increase the risk it posed (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 79 [2015]; King at 476).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1164, 147 A.D.3d 507, 47 N.Y.S.3d 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latif-v-eugene-smilovic-housing-development-fund-co-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack