Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc.

226 A.D.2d 175, 640 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3642

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

DecidedApril 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 175 (Munoz v. Artha Management, 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

Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 175, 640 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about September 26, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, upon granting renewal, adhered to the original determination granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiff’s friend, submitted for the first time on the motion to renew and without explanation for its initial omission, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition (see, Cipolla v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 215 AD2d 346), especially in light of plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that she did not see any such condition when she ascended the same stairs subsequent to the witness’s alleged observations (see, Trujillo v Riverbay Corp., 153 AD2d 793, 795). Nor did plaintiff’s submissions give rise to a material issue of fact regarding her inadequate lighting claim. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, 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 on or about September 26, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, upon granting renewal, adhered to the original determination granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiff’s friend, submitted for the first time on the motion to renew and without explanation for its initial omission, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition (see, Cipolla v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 215 AD2d 346), especially in light of plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that she did not see any such condition when she ascended the same stairs subsequent to the witness’s alleged observations (see, Trujillo v Riverbay Corp., 153 AD2d 793, 795). Nor did plaintiff’s submissions give rise to a material issue of fact regarding her inadequate lighting claim. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 175, 640 N.Y.S.2d 514, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-artha-management-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack