Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inmaculada Perez, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Abbey Associates Corporation

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 26, 2013

INMACULADA PEREZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ABBEY ASSOCIATES CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Perez v Abbey Assoc. Corp.

Decided on February 26, 2013

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Roman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered July 7, 2011, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she slipped and fell on rainwater on an outdoor staircase leading to the basement garbage disposal area. She stated that she did not see any dangerous or unsafe conditions on the steps, other than the rainwater. Defendants made a prima facie showing that it was raining until approximately one hour before the accident, and the building superintendent stated that there were no violations relating to the stairs. Defendants sustained their burden of demonstrating that they neither caused nor created the condition which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see Brewer v Stonehill & Taylor Architects, 93 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2012]).

The burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact (see Smith v Costco Wholesale Corp., 50 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2008]). Plaintiff's affidavit and the letter from her expert were insufficient to sustain her burden. Plaintiff's affidavit appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequences of her deposition testimony (see Singh v Actors Equity Holding Corp., 89 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2011]). The expert's letter was irrelevant because, based on plaintiff's testimony, the conditions cited were not the proximate cause of her fall. Nor did plaintiff's expert demonstrate that the Building Code sections alleged were applicable to the exterior stair where plaintiff fell.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 26, 2013

CLERK

20130226

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.