Ruiz v. 30 Real Estate Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. 30 Real Estate Corp.

47 A.D.3d 432, 849 N.Y.S.2d 238

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 432 (Ruiz v. 30 Real Estate 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

Ruiz v. 30 Real Estate Corp., 47 A.D.3d 432, 849 N.Y.S.2d 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered February 13, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of making a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment on the basis that the grease and garbage on the staircase in its building were not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Plaintiff, in his deposition testimony, which defendant included in support of its motion, stated that he alerted a member of defendant’s staff to the condition of the staircase more than 12 hours before his fall, and that he slipped on the grease that was still present on the stairs causing him to fall down the flight of stairs (compare McNally v Sabban, 32 AD3d 340, 342 [2006]). Evidence that plaintiff had been drinking prior to his fall, and the aggressive approach to the garbage by plaintiffs dog while the dog was on a leash held by plaintiff, do not warrant a different conclusion (see Lopez v 1372 Shakespeare Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 299 AD2d 230, 231-232 [2002]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including that plaintiff, seeing that the garbage was still on the staircase, should have taken the elevator, and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered February 13, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of making a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment on the basis that the grease and garbage on the staircase in its building were not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Plaintiff, in his deposition testimony, which defendant included in support of its motion, stated that he alerted a member of defendant’s staff to the condition of the staircase more than 12 hours before his fall, and that he slipped on the grease that was still present on the stairs causing him to fall down the flight of stairs (compare McNally v Sabban, 32 AD3d 340, 342 [2006]). Evidence that plaintiff had been drinking prior to his fall, and the aggressive approach to the garbage by plaintiffs dog while the dog was on a leash held by plaintiff, do not warrant a different conclusion (see Lopez v 1372 Shakespeare Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 299 AD2d 230, 231-232 [2002]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including that plaintiff, seeing that the garbage was still on the staircase, should have taken the elevator, and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 432, 849 N.Y.S.2d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-30-real-estate-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack