Opinion
2012-02-28
Marisol LUCIANO, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. DECO TOWERS ASSOCIATES LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Louise Cherkis of counsel), for Deco Towers Associates LLC, appellant-respondent. Gottlieb, Siegel & Schwartz, Bronx (Shane M. Biffar of counsel), for World Elevator Co., Inc., and New World Elevator, LLC, appellants-respondents.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Louise Cherkis of counsel), for Deco Towers Associates LLC, appellant-respondent. Gottlieb, Siegel & Schwartz, Bronx (Shane M. Biffar of counsel), for World Elevator Co., Inc., and New World Elevator, LLC, appellants-respondents. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Kenneth J. Gorman of counsel), for respondent.SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, FREEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 30, 2011, which denied defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court, Justice, and entry date, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend her bill of particulars, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.
Defendants' respective moving papers satisfied their initial burdens of establishing prima facie their lack of knowledge of the alleged defective condition. Defendants submitted evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained, and that they had no notice of a defective condition.
In opposition to the motions, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, plaintiff's expert's affidavit was lacking any specificity, misstated the nature of the alleged misleveling, and was wholly conclusory ( Gjonaj v. Otis Elevator Co., 38 A.D.3d 384, 832 N.Y.S.2d 189 [2007]; Santoni v. Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 A.D.3d 712, 715, 800 N.Y.S.2d 676 [2005] ). In view of this disposition, plaintiff's appeal on the question of the amendment to the bill of particulars is dismissed as academic.