From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 9, 1996
226 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 9, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).


The affidavit of plaintiff's friend, submitted for the first time on the motion to renew and without explanation for its initial omission, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition ( see, Cipolla v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 215 A.D.2d 346), especially in light of plaintiff's own deposition testimony that she did not see any such condition when she ascended the same stairs subsequent to the witness's alleged observations ( see, Trujillo v. Riverbay Corp., 153 A.D.2d 793, 795). Nor did plaintiff's submissions give rise to a material issue of fact regarding her inadequate lighting claim.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 9, 1996
226 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Munoz v. Artha Management, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LEONIDA MUNOZ et al., Appellants, v. ARTHA MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 9, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 514