Arce v. 1704 Seddon Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 November 2011 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08482,935 N.Y.S.2d 1,89 A.D.3d 602 |
| Parties | Luis ARCE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 1704 SEDDON REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Marcia K. Raicus of counsel), for appellants.
Kerry B. Stevens, White Plains, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered May 13, 2011, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor defendants dismissing the complaint.
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while descending an interior staircase in defendants' building, he slipped on a pool of clear liquid and fell down the stairs. Defendants demonstrated that they neither created nor had notice of the allegedly defective condition of the stairs.
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There was no evidence that defendants were notified of any clear liquid on the day of the accident or that the clear liquid was present for a sufficient period of time to allow defendants' employees an opportunity to discover and remedy the problem ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 [1986]; Wallace v. Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 A.D.2d 255, 755 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2003] ). The clear liquid that caused plaintiff's fall could have been deposited there only minutes before the accident, particularly in light of plaintiff's testimony that the liquid was still dripping from the top step to the second step ( see Rivera v. 2160 Realty Co., L.L.C., 4 N.Y.3d 837, 797 N.Y.S.2d 369, 830 N.E.2d 267 [2005] ).
Furthermore, although plaintiff submitted affidavits from his girlfriend and another tenant of the building, who said that the subject stairs were often slippery and strewn with garbage, such prior observations are insufficient to defeat the motion ( see Melendez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 23 A.D.3d 211, 803 N.Y.S.2d 547 [2005] ).
The report of plaintiff's expert was unsworn and therefore, did not constitute competent evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact ( see Mazzola v. City of New York, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Cdga Nat'l Bank Trust & Canandaigua Nat'l Corp.
...motion were not in admissible form and thus were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Arce v. 1704 Seddon Realty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 602, 603, 935 N.Y.S.2d 1;Woodard v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 405, 405, 692 N.Y.S.2d 407;Stowell v. Safee, 251 A.D.2d 1026, 1026, 674......
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Chelsea 7 Corp.
...constitutes inadmissible hearsay not properly before the Court on a motion for summary judgment (See Arce v 1704 Seldon Realty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 602 [1st Dept 2011]). This dispute, however, is largely academic, as even were the Court to consider Mr. Vargas' report, it would decline to award ......
-
SJWA LLC v. Father Realty Corp.
...constitutes inadmissible hearsay not properly before the Court on a motion for summary judgment (SeeArce v 1704 Seldon Realty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 602 [1st Dept 2011]). This dispute, however, is largely academic, as even were the Court to consider Mr. Vargas' report, it would decline to award l......
-
Warner v. Continuum Health Care Partners, Inc.
...law, proffering evidence that it was not on notice of the clear liquid upon which plaintiff fell ( see Arce v. 1704 Seddon Realty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 602, 603, 935 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2011] ). St. Luke's cafeteria manager testified that she conducted regular inspections that day, saw no liqu......