Peralta-Santos v. 350 West 49th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peralta-Santos v. 350 West 49th Street Corp.

139 A.D.3d 536, 30 N.Y.S.3d 553

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket1190 152344/13

StatusPublished

Cited by229 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 536 (Peralta-Santos v. 350 West 49th Street Corp.) 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

Peralta-Santos v. 350 West 49th Street Corp., 139 A.D.3d 536, 30 N.Y.S.3d 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered January 5, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a *537 matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he fell down the stairs in defendants’ building. Defendants submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony where he stated that while climbing the subject stairs, he suddenly felt dizzy and weak, heard the “noise of a paper,” and remembered nothing else until he later awoke in the hospital. He was twice asked whether he knew, or ever learned, what caused him to fall, and each time answered that he did not. Nowhere else in his testimony did plaintiff identify the cause of his fall (see Lee v Ana Dev. Corp., 110 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His affidavit, where he claimed that he slipped and fell on paper restaurant menus strewn on defendants’ stairs, was inadmissable, as plaintiff testified he neither spoke, read nor wrote in English, yet his affidavit was unaccompanied by a translator’s affidavit attesting to its accuracy, as required by CPLR 2101 (b) (see Eustaquio v 860 Cortlandt Holdings, Inc., 95 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2012]; Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp., 83 AD3d 47, 54 [2d Dept 2011]). Furthermore, even if admissible, the affidavit raised only feigned issues of fact, as it contradicted plaintiff’s deposition testimony, and was tailored to avoid the consequences of such testimony (see e.g. Phillips v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318, 320 [1st Dept 2000]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered January 5, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a *537 matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he fell down the stairs in defendants’ building. Defendants submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony where he stated that while climbing the subject stairs, he suddenly felt dizzy and weak, heard the “noise of a paper,” and remembered nothing else until he later awoke in the hospital. He was twice asked whether he knew, or ever learned, what caused him to fall, and each time answered that he did not. Nowhere else in his testimony did plaintiff identify the cause of his fall (see Lee v Ana Dev. Corp., 110 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His affidavit, where he claimed that he slipped and fell on paper restaurant menus strewn on defendants’ stairs, was inadmissable, as plaintiff testified he neither spoke, read nor wrote in English, yet his affidavit was unaccompanied by a translator’s affidavit attesting to its accuracy, as required by CPLR 2101 (b) (see Eustaquio v 860 Cortlandt Holdings, Inc., 95 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2012]; Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp., 83 AD3d 47, 54 [2d Dept 2011]). Furthermore, even if admissible, the affidavit raised only feigned issues of fact, as it contradicted plaintiff’s deposition testimony, and was tailored to avoid the consequences of such testimony (see e.g. Phillips v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318, 320 [1st Dept 2000]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 536, 30 N.Y.S.3d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peralta-santos-v-350-west-49th-street-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack