Perez v. Canale

50 A.D.3d 437, 855 N.Y.S.2d 488
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 437 (Perez v. Canale) 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
Perez v. Canale, 50 A.D.3d 437, 855 N.Y.S.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 19, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Atlantic Development Group, LLC, Sagamore Street Associates, L.E, Birchall Avenue, L.E, and Knickerbocker Management, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in this action where plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell on snow and ice while traversing a cement walkway leading to a building owned by Sagamore and managed by Knickerbocker. The climatological data relied upon by defendants’ expert meteorologist was prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein (CPLR 4528), and the expert permissibly concluded that due to temperatures that were well above freezing in the 12 hours prior to plaintiffs fall, it would have been impossible for there to have been a precipitation-related ice or snow accumulation in the vicinity of plaintiffs fall. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it was not speculative for defendants’ qualified expert to conclude that the temperatures were at levels that would have caused melting on the days prior to and of the accident (compare Neidert v Austin S. Edgar, Inc., 204 AD2d 1030 [1994]).

The affidavit of plaintiffs friend does not raise a triable issue of material fact, in the face of the evidence that ice could not have been present on the walkway at the time of the accident (see Leo v Mt. St. Michael Academy, 272 AD2d 145, 146 [2000]). The court also properly discounted plaintiffs photographs taken the day after the accident, where the photos were not of the accident location. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

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

Related

Marcano v. 100-120 Hugh Grant Circle Realty, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 05819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
McRae v. New York Flower, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 05087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Jakubowski v. Axton Owner LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 8724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Keita v. City of New York
129 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sikora v. Earth Leasing Property Ltd. Liability Co.
46 Misc. 3d 279 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Daley v. Janel Tower L.P.
89 A.D.3d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Massey v. Newburgh W. Realty, Inc.
84 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.3d 437, 855 N.Y.S.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-canale-nyappdiv-2008.