Oldham v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oldham v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 8087, 155 A.D.3d 477, 65 N.Y.S.3d 504

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2017

Docket4966 150578/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8087 (Oldham v. City of New York) 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

Oldham v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 8087, 155 A.D.3d 477, 65 N.Y.S.3d 504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants-respondents (respondents) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Respondents failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff Barbara Oldham tripped and fell in a pothole in the road. The affidavit submitted by respondents’ field engineer was insufficient since no facts were set forth by her to indicate that she possessed personal knowledge of the specific road construction work at issue (see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384-385 [2005]; Onewest Bank, FSB v Michel, 143 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2016]). The engineer also provided insufficient information that would authenticate the business records on which she relied in order to except such records from application of the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants-respondents (respondents) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Respondents failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff Barbara Oldham tripped and fell in a pothole in the road. The affidavit submitted by respondents’ field engineer was insufficient since no facts were set forth by her to indicate that she possessed personal knowledge of the specific road construction work at issue (see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384-385 [2005]; Onewest Bank, FSB v Michel, 143 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2016]). The engineer also provided insufficient information that would authenticate the business records on which she relied in order to except such records from application of the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8087, 155 A.D.3d 477, 65 N.Y.S.3d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oldham-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack