Mitthauer v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitthauer v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc.

69 A.D.3d 588, 893 N.Y.2d 152

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 588 (Mitthauer v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc.) 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

Mitthauer v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 588, 893 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[589]*589When asked at his deposition what caused his fall as he stepped from the portable toilet, Mitthauer testified: “I couldn’t honestly tell you. I was mystified myself.” Mitthauer also testified that, while the portable toilet was wobbly or “belter skelter” on some days, the toilet did not wobble when he exited it on the date of the accident. Mitthauer described the surface on the ground within a five-foot radius of his fall as unlevel, with “hills” and “valleys” caused by vehicles.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the submission of Mitthauer’s deposition testimony, that he was unable to identify a dangerous or defective condition actually causing his fall (see Kaplan v Great Neck Donuts, Inc., 68 AD3d 931 [2009]; Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]). In response to the defendant’s showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Proof of general ground conditions within a five-foot radius of the accident is irrelevant, and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, in the absence of evidence that the same conditions existed at the specific location where Mitthauer stepped (see Pinto v Metropolitan Opera, 61 AD3d 949 [2009]). The reply affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs in further support of the cross-motion, in which Mitthauer claimed, inter alia, that the portable toilet was unsteady and improperly placed, contradicted the earlier deposition testimony that it was steady at the time of the accident, and merely raised feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of the earlier deposition (see DeNicola v Costello, 44 AD3d at 990). The reply affidavit also failed to address the condition of the ground at the specific area where Mitthauer’s fall occurred (see Pinto v Metropolitan Opera, 61 AD3d at 949).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[589]*589When asked at his deposition what caused his fall as he stepped from the portable toilet, Mitthauer testified: “I couldn’t honestly tell you. I was mystified myself.” Mitthauer also testified that, while the portable toilet was wobbly or “belter skelter” on some days, the toilet did not wobble when he exited it on the date of the accident. Mitthauer described the surface on the ground within a five-foot radius of his fall as unlevel, with “hills” and “valleys” caused by vehicles.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the submission of Mitthauer’s deposition testimony, that he was unable to identify a dangerous or defective condition actually causing his fall (see Kaplan v Great Neck Donuts, Inc., 68 AD3d 931 [2009]; Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]). In response to the defendant’s showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Proof of general ground conditions within a five-foot radius of the accident is irrelevant, and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, in the absence of evidence that the same conditions existed at the specific location where Mitthauer stepped (see Pinto v Metropolitan Opera, 61 AD3d 949 [2009]). The reply affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs in further support of the cross-motion, in which Mitthauer claimed, inter alia, that the portable toilet was unsteady and improperly placed, contradicted the earlier deposition testimony that it was steady at the time of the accident, and merely raised feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of the earlier deposition (see DeNicola v Costello, 44 AD3d at 990). The reply affidavit also failed to address the condition of the ground at the specific area where Mitthauer’s fall occurred (see Pinto v Metropolitan Opera, 61 AD3d at 949).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 588, 893 N.Y.2d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitthauer-v-t-moriarty-son-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack