Valerio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valerio v. City of New York

23 A.D.3d 308, 804 N.Y.S.2d 312

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 308 (Valerio v. City of New York) 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

Valerio v. City of New York, 23 A.D.3d 308, 804 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered January 10, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Triumph Construction’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The speculative and contradictory deposition testimony of Triumph’s officer/employee was insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, whatever showing Triumph made was rebutted by plaintiff with admissible evidence in the form of street opening permits as well as the officer’s deposition testimony, raising a triable issue of fact (cf. James v Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 99 NY2d 639 [2003], affg 294 AD2d 268 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered January 10, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Triumph Construction’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The speculative and contradictory deposition testimony of Triumph’s officer/employee was insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, whatever showing Triumph made was rebutted by plaintiff with admissible evidence in the form of street opening permits as well as the officer’s deposition testimony, raising a triable issue of fact (cf. James v Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 99 NY2d 639 [2003], affg 294 AD2d 268 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 308, 804 N.Y.S.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valerio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack