From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buckley v. Rockefeller Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1988
143 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Summary

In Buckley v Rockefeller Group (143 A.D.2d 623), summary judgment was denied because the defendant, unlike the case at bar, failed to produce a lease or other documentation indicating the transfer of the operation and control of the building in which the plaintiff fell to another party and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement as to a matter of law.

Summary of this case from Giacco v. Noteworthy Company

Opinion

October 3, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages after the plaintiff Rose Buckley fell on the wet floor of a lobby of a building allegedly owned, operated and controlled by the appellants. Although the appellants admitted ownership of the premises, they denied that they in any way operated or controlled the building. Since the only proof offered by the appellants to support their contention that they did not operate or control the premises was the unsubstantiated conclusory testimony of an employee at an abbreviated examination before trial, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Fox v Wyeth Labs., 129 A.D.2d 611; Raia Indus. v Young, 124 A.D.2d 722; Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132). The appellants failed to produce a lease or other documentation indicating the transfer of the operation and control of the building to another party and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (cf., McGill v Caldors, Inc., 135 A.D.2d 1041; Bellen v Lomanto, 125 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 610). Since a triable issue of fact remains with regard to the appellants' liability in this action, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

The awarding of costs to the plaintiffs in this case did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (CPLR 8106; Carp v Marcus, 116 A.D.2d 854; Matter of Kavares [MVAIC], 29 A.D.2d 68, affd sub nom. Matter of McEntee [MVAIC], 28 N.Y.2d 939; England v Gradowitz Bros. Realty Corp., 137 Misc.2d 21; Siegel, N Y Prac § 414). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buckley v. Rockefeller Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1988
143 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

In Buckley v Rockefeller Group (143 A.D.2d 623), summary judgment was denied because the defendant, unlike the case at bar, failed to produce a lease or other documentation indicating the transfer of the operation and control of the building in which the plaintiff fell to another party and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement as to a matter of law.

Summary of this case from Giacco v. Noteworthy Company
Case details for

Buckley v. Rockefeller Group, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROSE BUCKLEY et al., Respondents, v. ROCKEFELLER GROUP, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Nahar v. Angelo Socci, Loretta Socci & Citigroup, Inc.

The deposition testimony of Angelo Socci as to his belief as to the terms of Citigroup's lease for 1200…

Larkin v. Radio City Music Hall Corporation

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendants landlords, at the time of the accident, were responsible for…