McGuire v. Quinnonez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGuire v. Quinnonez

280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1704

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 587 (McGuire v. Quinnonez) 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

McGuire v. Quinnonez, 280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), entered February 2, 2000, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

At his examination before trial, the injured plaintiff James H. McGuire testified that it was “raining ice” shortly before he slipped and fell on an ice-covered stairway at the defendant’s premises. Three years after the accident, and nine months after his deposition, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the injured plaintiff stated in an affidavit that the storm had ended more than three hours before his accident. Thus, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant had a reasonably sufficient time after the cessation of the precipitation to remedy the allegedly hazardous condition (see, Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972; Lamolly v Mobile Veterinary Tenant Unit Enters., 276 AD2d 596). These contradictory statements raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier admission (see, Martin v W.B. Rest., 269 AD2d 431; Vento v City of New York, 262 AD2d 309; Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), entered February 2, 2000, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

At his examination before trial, the injured plaintiff James H. McGuire testified that it was “raining ice” shortly before he slipped and fell on an ice-covered stairway at the defendant’s premises. Three years after the accident, and nine months after his deposition, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the injured plaintiff stated in an affidavit that the storm had ended more than three hours before his accident. Thus, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant had a reasonably sufficient time after the cessation of the precipitation to remedy the allegedly hazardous condition (see, Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972; Lamolly v Mobile Veterinary Tenant Unit Enters., 276 AD2d 596). These contradictory statements raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier admission (see, Martin v W.B. Rest., 269 AD2d 431; Vento v City of New York, 262 AD2d 309; Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguire-v-quinnonez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack