Sanders v. Aqua Chlor Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. Aqua Chlor Enterprises, Inc.

90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 406

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 521 (Sanders v. Aqua Chlor Enterprises, 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

Sanders v. Aqua Chlor Enterprises, Inc., 90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant Aqua Chlor made a prima facie showing of entitle[522]*522ment to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence— including its owner’s and plaintiffs deposition testimony and New York City Department of Finance records — that defendant IMS, not Aqua Chlor, owned the lot adjoining the sidewalk where plaintiff alleges he tripped and fell. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Indeed, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that Aqua Chlor owned the subject lot. It is unclear whether the complaint also was dismissed as against IMS. In any event, there would be no basis to dismiss as against IMS, which has not answered, because there is evidence that it owned the lot.

The motion court improperly found that plaintiffs continued prosecution of this action against Aqua Chlor was frivolous; and thus, costs, attorney’s fees and sanctions were not warranted. The attorney had a reason not to sign a stipulation of discontinuance before ascertaining exactly where his client fell.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Defendant Aqua Chlor made a prima facie showing of entitle[522]*522ment to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence— including its owner’s and plaintiffs deposition testimony and New York City Department of Finance records — that defendant IMS, not Aqua Chlor, owned the lot adjoining the sidewalk where plaintiff alleges he tripped and fell. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Indeed, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that Aqua Chlor owned the subject lot. It is unclear whether the complaint also was dismissed as against IMS. In any event, there would be no basis to dismiss as against IMS, which has not answered, because there is evidence that it owned the lot.

The motion court improperly found that plaintiffs continued prosecution of this action against Aqua Chlor was frivolous; and thus, costs, attorney’s fees and sanctions were not warranted. The attorney had a reason not to sign a stipulation of discontinuance before ascertaining exactly where his client fell.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-aqua-chlor-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack