Spitzer v. 2166 Bronx Park East Corps.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spitzer v. 2166 Bronx Park East Corps.

284 A.D.2d 177, 726 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6180

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

DecidedJune 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 177 (Spitzer v. 2166 Bronx Park East Corps.) 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

Spitzer v. 2166 Bronx Park East Corps., 284 A.D.2d 177, 726 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 1, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint or, alternatively, to strike the complaint for failure to timely disclose the existence of a witness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants in this slip and fall case moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs testimony was insufficient to raise an issue as to whether they had notice of the alleged hazard. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his father stating that the muddy water and additional debris which plaintiff testified accumulated subsequent to his departure in the morning, had been on the stair for at least two hours during the period of time that defendant’s employees purportedly inspected the building staircase. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment for lack of notice, defendants were required to make a prima facie showing which affirmatively established the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Fox v Kamal Corp., 271 AD2d 485). Here, the testimony of the purported building superintendent that he had inspected the stairways of the subject building twice on the day of the accident, along with plaintiffs evidence regarding the existence of muddy water and long-standing debris on the staircase raised an issue of fact as to whether the complained of condition had existed long enough for defendants to have discovered and remedied it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). It was a proper exercise of the motion court’s discretion to consider plaintiffs evidence, while striking plaintiffs note of issue and giving defendants an opportunity to depose the witness. Preclusion is a drastic remedy and was properly denied absent any demonstration that plaintiffs conduct was willful and contumacious (see, Hanson v City of New York, 227 AD2d 217). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 1, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint or, alternatively, to strike the complaint for failure to timely disclose the existence of a witness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants in this slip and fall case moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs testimony was insufficient to raise an issue as to whether they had notice of the alleged hazard. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his father stating that the muddy water and additional debris which plaintiff testified accumulated subsequent to his departure in the morning, had been on the stair for at least two hours during the period of time that defendant’s employees purportedly inspected the building staircase. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment for lack of notice, defendants were required to make a prima facie showing which affirmatively established the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Fox v Kamal Corp., 271 AD2d 485). Here, the testimony of the purported building superintendent that he had inspected the stairways of the subject building twice on the day of the accident, along with plaintiffs evidence regarding the existence of muddy water and long-standing debris on the staircase raised an issue of fact as to whether the complained of condition had existed long enough for defendants to have discovered and remedied it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). It was a proper exercise of the motion court’s discretion to consider plaintiffs evidence, while striking plaintiffs note of issue and giving defendants an opportunity to depose the witness. Preclusion is a drastic remedy and was properly denied absent any demonstration that plaintiffs conduct was willful and contumacious (see, Hanson v City of New York, 227 AD2d 217). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 177, 726 N.Y.S.2d 639, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitzer-v-2166-bronx-park-east-corps-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack