From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2003
304 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

927

April 24, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered January 30, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by hazards on a staircase in premises owned and operated by defendant, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Rayhan Nazrali, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cynthia A. Neugebauer, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach, Friedman, JJ.


In support of its motion for summary judgment made after plaintiff had filed a note of issue, defendant submitted the affidavit of its supervisor of caretakers that no reports of liquid spills, debris or other hazards on the staircase were made for either the date of the accident or the previous day. Defendant also relied on plaintiff's testimony at her 50-h hearing and examination before trial that she did not observe the alleged hazards on the staircase when she used it the previous afternoon and that she knew of no one who had observed the hazards prior to her fall. This testimony was consistent with plaintiff's response to a preliminary conference order directing the parties to exchange the names and addresses of all witnesses. Nevertheless, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a previously undisclosed building resident stating that she saw the alleged hazards on the staircase on each of the two days prior to the accident. The motion court properly refused to consider this affidavit. Plaintiff did not seek to vacate her note of issue and identifies no "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" warranting additional pretrial proceedings ( 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]). In any event, the proffered affidavit "can only be considered to have been tailored to avoid the consequences of [plaintiff's] earlier testimony," and, as such, fails to raise a genuine issue of fact as to notice (Perez v Bronx Park S. Assoc., 285 A.D.2d 402,lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 610; see also Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2003
304 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth

Case Details

Full title:ANA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 53

Citing Cases

Branham v. Loews

Thus, far from raising a triable issue of fact as to the duration of the boy's presence, Mulzac's affidavit…

Velez v. Pagan

In the case at bar, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish an entitlement to summary…