Mermelstein v. East Winds Co.

136 A.D.3d 505, 24 N.Y.S.3d 643
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2016
Docket209 114029/09
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 505 (Mermelstein v. East Winds 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
Mermelstein v. East Winds Co., 136 A.D.3d 505, 24 N.Y.S.3d 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered December 12, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an external staircase outside of defendant’s building, where he lived. Plaintiff testified that the staircase was slippery, but he did not know what caused him to fall. He also testified that he could not remember if it had rained that day, but it was misting in the evening, when he fell. After defendant moved for summary judgment, plaintiff claimed in his affidavit in opposition that the stairs were wet and slippery from rain earlier in the day, and that he slipped and fell as he descended the stairs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment by pointing to plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not know what caused him to fall (Washington v New York City Bd. of Educ., 95 AD3d 739, 739-740 [1st Dept 2012]).

Plaintiff’s affidavit, which contradicted his deposition testimony, created only a feigned issue of fact, and was insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion (see Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372, 373 [1st Dept 2007]). Moreover, mere wetness on a walking surface due to rain is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, especially since plaintiff failed to submit any expert testimony showing that the staircase was danger *506 ous when wet (see Ceron v Yeshiva Univ., 126 AD3d 630, 632 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Feinberg v. 72nd Tenants Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 00720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Polanco v. Durgaj
159 N.Y.S.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Sowa v. Zabar
2021 NY Slip Op 02618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Friberg v. City of New York
2021 NY Slip Op 02100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Danis v. John C. Food Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Suero v. Villa Maria Academy
2019 NY Slip Op 8774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Patterson v. New York City Transit Authority
2017 NY Slip Op 4780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Celaj v. Cornell
2016 NY Slip Op 7996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 505, 24 N.Y.S.3d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mermelstein-v-east-winds-co-nyappdiv-2016.