From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Hemlok Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06079.

Decided April 5, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated June 10, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

James P. Nunemaker, Jr., Associates, Uniondale, N.Y. (Keith E. Ford of counsel), for appellant.

Beth J. Schlossman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (David Feinsilver, Millburn, N.J., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when the sash of a window suddenly descended on his right hand which was resting on the window ledge. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was in his friend's apartment which was owned by the defendant.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant alleging negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. We reverse.

Based upon the deposition testimony of each of the defendant's president and the building superintendent, neither of them received any complaint about the subject window. The roommate of the plaintiff's friend testified at her deposition that no such complaints were made. Thus, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through deposition testimony, that it had no notice of any defective condition involving the window. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted only hearsay evidence consisting of his own deposition testimony in which he claimed that his friend told him that either his friend or his friend's roommate previously complained about the window to the building superintendent. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any affidavit or testimony from his friend to that effect, or demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to do so ( see Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1068; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keil, 268 A.D.2d 545, 545-546). Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keil, supra at 545; see generally Wilbur v. Wilbur, 266 A.D.2d 535, 536).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Joseph v. Hemlok Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Joseph v. Hemlok Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS JOSEPH, respondent, v. HEMLOK REALTY CORP., appellant

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 61

Citing Cases

Wynne v. Diaz

Although the requirement that evidentiary proof be submitted in admissible form is “more flexible” when…

Waiters v. Northern Trust Company of New York

Further, there was no evidence in the record warranting an inference that the wet condition on the bathroom…