From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shivers v. National Westminister Bank of N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1995
211 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants Sina Mahfar and Daniel Mahfar were the owners of a parcel of real property upon which the defendant National Westminster Bank of N.A. maintained a bank branch. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries when she fell on a negligently maintained portion of the property. The plaintiff consistently alleged in her response to the defendants' demands for a bill of particulars and at her deposition that she did not fall on the concrete pathway leading from the defendants' bank, but fell on a jagged, broken, gravel area. The defendants then separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, submitting proof that the gravel area on which the plaintiff fell was not owned, possessed, or controlled by them, since their property line ended approximately 3 to 4 feet before the concrete path ended at this gravel area. In opposition to the motions, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which she alleged for the first time, in contradiction to all of her other statements, that she fell on the walkway or concrete path and that she had never reached the gravel area.

The Supreme Court should have granted the respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. A landowner is generally not liable for a patron's injuries on abutting property (see, Palmer v. Prescott, 208 A.D.2d 1065; Zadarosni v. F. W. Restauranteurs, 192 A.D.2d 1051; Surowiec v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 727). The plaintiff's affidavit, which indicated that she may have fallen on property within the defendants' ownership or possession, only raised a feigned factual issue which will not serve to defeat the defendants' motions for summary judgment (see, Glick Dolleck v Tri-Pac Export Corp., 22 N.Y.2d 439; Garvin v. Rosenberg, 204 A.D.2d 388; Prunty v. Keltie's Bum Steer, 163 A.D.2d 595; Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701). Sullivan, J.P., Thompson, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shivers v. National Westminister Bank of N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1995
211 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Shivers v. National Westminister Bank of N.A.

Case Details

Full title:RAQUEL SHIVERS, Respondent, v. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK OF N.A. et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
620 N.Y.S.2d 490

Citing Cases

Regula v. Ford Motor Credit Titling Trust

Behr opposed the motions with nothing other than his own deposition testimony and affidavit stating that, as…

Keenan v. Bissonette

A trial court has the inherent power to permit changes or corrections to a deposition transcript, even though…