Luciano v. Deco Towers Associates LLC

92 A.D.3d 606, 939 N.Y.2d 48
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2012·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Defendants’ respective moving papers satisfied their initial burdens of establishing prima facie their lack of knowledge of the alleged defective condition. Defendants submitted evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained, and that they had no notice of a defective condition.

In opposition to the motions, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, plaintiffs expert’s affidavit was lacking any specificity, misstated the nature of the alleged misleveling, and was wholly conclusory (Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384 [2007]; Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 715 [2005]). In view of this disposition, plaintiffs appeal on the question of the amendment to the bill of particulars is dismissed as academic. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Luciano v. Deco Towers Associates LLC, 92 A.D.3d 606, 939 N.Y.2d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 606 (Luciano v. Deco Towers Associates LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fasano v. Euclid Hall Associates, L.P.
136 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC
129 A.D.3d 159 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Gell-Tejada v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.
116 A.D.3d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)