From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zamil v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

June 26, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered November 30, 2007, which denied the motion by defendants L L and Alpha for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.


Defendants' motion was based solely on plaintiff's testimony, at a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, that his accident was caused when three or four gallons of water and debris fell onto his windshield from the upper level of the Queensboro Bridge. His observation that construction was taking place on the upper level at the time was confirmed in an affidavit by a city employee. Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to conduct any discovery of defendants. Under the circumstances, the motion was premature ( Rengifo v City of New York, 7 AD3d 773).


Summaries of

Zamil v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Zamil v. New York

Case Details

Full title:ZAMIL UDDIN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and L L PAINTING…

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

Date published: Jun 26, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
861 N.Y.S.2d 25

Citing Cases

RSSM CPA LLP v. Bell

Id. Upon the completion of the court's examination of all of the documents submitted in connection with a…

Lowe v. Reyes

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.Uddin v. City of New York , 52 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2008]…