From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ochoa v. 3475 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 24, 2022
202 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

15372 Index No. 31545/19E Case No. 2021–03829

02-24-2022

Julio OCHOA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 3475 THIRD AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al., Defendants, Alegria Operating LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Salerno & Goldberg, P.C., Deer Park (Allen Goldberg of counsel), for appellant. James Sawyer, Jericho, for respondents.


Salerno & Goldberg, P.C., Deer Park (Allen Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

James Sawyer, Jericho, for respondents.

Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 28, 2021, dismissing the action as against defendants Alegria Operating LLC, Alegria Health & Wellness, and Alegria Operating LLC doing business as Alegria Health & Wellness (together, the Alegria defendants), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Alegria defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proffering an affidavit by a member of a codefendant, stating that the premises were owned by entities other than the Alegria defendants, and that one of those entities, not the Alegria defendants, had contracted for the construction work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his accident. The Alegria defendants also submitted an affidavit by their principal, as well as the lease for the premises, both of which established that the work on the premises was not complete at the time the affidavit was executed and that the Alegria defendants were not to take possession until that work was completed. In opposition, plaintiff's speculative assertions failed to raise an issue of fact (see A & E Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Team, Inc., 63 A.D.3d 486, 486–487, 880 N.Y.S.2d 634 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Furthermore, plaintiff's argument that the motion was premature is unavailing, since the knowledge of who contracted for and oversaw the work was solely in the possession of the codefendants, not the Alegria defendants, who had not yet taken possession of the premises (see Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 636, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994 [1979] ).


Summaries of

Ochoa v. 3475 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 24, 2022
202 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Ochoa v. 3475 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Julio OCHOA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 3475 THIRD AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 24, 2022

Citations

202 A.D.3d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
159 N.Y.S.3d 847