Opinion
12905 Index No. 21498/14 Case No. 2019-04944
01-19-2021
Petrona MARTINEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Housing Authority, Defendant–Appellant.
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellant. Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York (Steven C. November of counsel), for respondent.
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York (Steven C. November of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Oing, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2019, which denied defendant New York City Housing Authority's (N.Y.CHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to NYCHA's contention, although plaintiff was unable to pinpoint on photographs the exact location of her fall on an uneven sidewalk abutting its premises, she did not merely speculate as to the cause of the accident but testified consistently that she tripped on a sidewalk defect abutting defendant's premises, identified the general location where she fell and clarified any possible misidentification of the defect which caused her fall (see Figueroa v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 438, 440, 5 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Cherry v. Daytop Vil., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 130, 131, 837 N.Y.S.2d 109 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Any inconsistencies in plaintiff's testimony as to the cause of her fall present credibility issues for the jury's determination (see Guo Ping Li v. Overseas Partnership Co., Inc., 176 A.D.3d 608, 609, 109 N.Y.S.3d 636 [1st Dept. 2019] ).