Miranda v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miranda v. New York City Housing Authority

293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 367 (Miranda v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Miranda v. New York City Housing Authority, 293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered August 24, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell in the stairwell of defendant’s apartment building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, there being an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the stairs. The affidavit of plaintiffs cousin submitted in opposition to the motion, while contradictory of some aspects of plaintiff’s testimony that do not bear on notice, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident for defendant to have discovered and remedied it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; compare, Phillips v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318). We also reject defendant’s argument that such affidavit should have been precluded. Defendant’s prior demand for a bill of particulars calling for the names of persons who “received [constructive] notice” of the alleged dangerous condition was at best confusing, and plaintiffs failure to interpret it as a demand for the names of persons who would testify to the length of time that the substance was on the stairs cannot be deemed willful or contumacious (compare, Masucci-Matarazzo v Hoszowski, 291 AD2d 208). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered August 24, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff fell in the stairwell of defendant’s apartment building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, there being an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the stairs. The affidavit of plaintiffs cousin submitted in opposition to the motion, while contradictory of some aspects of plaintiff’s testimony that do not bear on notice, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident for defendant to have discovered and remedied it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; compare, Phillips v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318). We also reject defendant’s argument that such affidavit should have been precluded. Defendant’s prior demand for a bill of particulars calling for the names of persons who “received [constructive] notice” of the alleged dangerous condition was at best confusing, and plaintiffs failure to interpret it as a demand for the names of persons who would testify to the length of time that the substance was on the stairs cannot be deemed willful or contumacious (compare, Masucci-Matarazzo v Hoszowski, 291 AD2d 208). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack