Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority

120 A.D.3d 1134, 992 N.Y.S.2d 426

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2014

Docket13030 309204/11

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1134 (Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority, 120 A.D.3d 1134, 992 N.Y.S.2d 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered October 3, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a tenant in a building owned by NYCHA, allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on the fourth floor landing of a stairwell in the 14-story building. NYCHA established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through the testimony of the building’s caretaker who stated that he inspected the stairwell, including the fourth floor landing, within two hours prior to plaintiffs accident and did not see any urine on the floor (see Vilomar v 490 E. 181st St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp Corp., 50 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2008]).

In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affidavit from her neighbor stating that she observed urine on the fourth floor landing the day before plaintiffs accident and again the following morning before the accident occurred. The motion court properly considered the affidavit and plaintiffs supplemental bill of particulars. Although both were served after plaintiff filed the note of issue, the court subsequently vacated the note of issue at NYCHA’s request. We reject NYCHA’s contention that it is entitled to the benefit of vacating *1135 the note of issue to conduct further discovery while precluding plaintiff from engaging in further discovery.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered October 3, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a tenant in a building owned by NYCHA, allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on the fourth floor landing of a stairwell in the 14-story building. NYCHA established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through the testimony of the building’s caretaker who stated that he inspected the stairwell, including the fourth floor landing, within two hours prior to plaintiffs accident and did not see any urine on the floor (see Vilomar v 490 E. 181st St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp Corp., 50 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2008]).

In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affidavit from her neighbor stating that she observed urine on the fourth floor landing the day before plaintiffs accident and again the following morning before the accident occurred. The motion court properly considered the affidavit and plaintiffs supplemental bill of particulars. Although both were served after plaintiff filed the note of issue, the court subsequently vacated the note of issue at NYCHA’s request. We reject NYCHA’s contention that it is entitled to the benefit of vacating *1135 the note of issue to conduct further discovery while precluding plaintiff from engaging in further discovery.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1134, 992 N.Y.S.2d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack