Luong v. 173 Lafayette Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luong v. 173 Lafayette Corp.

266 A.D.2d 26, 697 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11157

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 26 (Luong v. 173 Lafayette Corp.) 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

Luong v. 173 Lafayette Corp., 266 A.D.2d 26, 697 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 2, 1998, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant building owner’s negligent maintenance of a staircase, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 11, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to renew its motion to vacate the default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur was properly denied on the ground that the assertion of defendant’s President that he knew of no condition on the staircase that could have caused plaintiffs fall is conclusory, given plaintiffs allegations of inadequate handrails and lighting, and deficient as an affidavit of merit (see, Zapater v 2540 Assocs., 250 AD2d 508). Renewal was properly denied on the ground that defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not having submitted an adequate affidavit of merit on the original motion (see, Leonard Fuchs, Inc. v Laser Processing Corp., 222 AD2d 280). In any event, the affidavit of merit submitted with the renewal motion is also inadequate since it does not address the condition of the premises at the time of plaintiffs fall (see, Santiago v United Artists Communications, 263 AD2d 407). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 2, 1998, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant building owner’s negligent maintenance of a staircase, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 11, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to renew its motion to vacate the default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur was properly denied on the ground that the assertion of defendant’s President that he knew of no condition on the staircase that could have caused plaintiffs fall is conclusory, given plaintiffs allegations of inadequate handrails and lighting, and deficient as an affidavit of merit (see, Zapater v 2540 Assocs., 250 AD2d 508). Renewal was properly denied on the ground that defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not having submitted an adequate affidavit of merit on the original motion (see, Leonard Fuchs, Inc. v Laser Processing Corp., 222 AD2d 280). In any event, the affidavit of merit submitted with the renewal motion is also inadequate since it does not address the condition of the premises at the time of plaintiffs fall (see, Santiago v United Artists Communications, 263 AD2d 407). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 26, 697 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luong-v-173-lafayette-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack