Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009-05142 |
| Citation | 892 N.Y.S.2d 477,2010 NY Slip Op 86,69 A.D.3d 545 |
| Parties | EDELGARD BETZ, Respondent, v. DANIEL CONTI, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleges that, on May 25, 2005, she sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall on a brick walkway on premises owned by the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the walkway was not defective, and that, even if a defect existed, they neither created it nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence.
Although the affidavit of the defendants' expert, which was notarized outside the state, failed to conform to the requirements set forth in CPLR 2309 (c), contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, such defect was not fatal, as the plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby (see CPLR 2001; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; see also Falah v Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 41 AD3d 638 [2007]).
Nonetheless, considering the papers submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, including their expert's affidavit, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the walkway was not defective, or that, if the alleged defect existed, they did not create or have actual or constructive notice thereof (see Roy v City of New York, 65 AD3d 1030 [2009]; Alexander v Rum Point Tavern, Inc., 62 AD3d 731 [2009]; Gullo-Georgio v Dunkin' Donuts Inc., 38 AD3d 836 [2007]). The expert's affidavit did not address the plaintiff's allegation in her complaint that the accident occurred because the walkway was "uneven, wet, moldy, moss covered, grassy, slippery, dangerous and hazardous." Instead, the defendants' expert contended that the walkway was not defective because it complied with the provisions of the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (19 NYCRR parts 1220-1228) applicable to newly constructed handicapped accessible ramps (see Building Code of NY State § 1003.3.4 [2007], as incorporated by reference into 19 NYCRR 1221.1 [a]), which was not responsive to the plaintiff's allegations regarding the cause of her accident. Further, there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the plaintiff fell on any type of ramp.
Moreover, in her deposition testimony, the plaintiff noted that she had made several complaints to the defendants about people falling on the walkway, as well as the dangerous condition of the walkway. In his deposition testimony, the individual defendant recalled receiving complaints about a walkway on the premises prior to the subject accident and, although he speculated that the complaints and accidents may have concerned a different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. DeCanio, 600554/15.
...65 [2d Dept 2013] ; Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing, 105 A.D.3d 916, 963 N.Y.S.2d 366 [2d Dept 2013] ; Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2d Dept 2010] ).Contrary to the claim of counsel, Christopher Thompson Esq., a proper Certificate of Merit, pursuant to CPLR § 301......
-
Midfirst Bank v. Agho
...100 A.D.3d 581, 953 N.Y.S.2d 266), motions in slip-and-fall actions reliant upon out-of-state witnesses ( see Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477; Falah v. Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 638, 838 N.Y.S.2d 639), motions in actions brought pursuant to Insurance Law ......
-
Rivers v. Birnbaum
...was not prejudiced thereby ( seeCPLR 2001; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Dellarmo, 94 A.D.3d 746, 748, 942 N.Y.S.2d 122;Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in not considering Boyd's affidavit. As to the subs......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Rodomista
...the state, is not a fatal defect because such certification may be provided nunc pro tunc (see, CPLR 2001 ; Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 AD3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2d Dept 2010] ). For the same reason, the uniform form certificate of acknowledgment that was erroneously executed by Mr. Mc......
-
Chapter 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
...122 (2d Dep't 2012); Recovery of Judgment, LLC v. Warren, 91 A.D.3d 656, 937 N.Y.S.2d 85 (2d Dep't 2012); Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477 (2d Dep't 2010).[1731] Internally citing: "(CPLR 2001; Sparaco v. Sparaco, 309 A.D.2d 1029, 765 N.Y.S.2d 683; Nandy v. Albany......
-
2.3 A. Form And Content Of Motion Papers, Affidavits And Exhibits
...determination, such defect was not fatal, as the plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby” in Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477 (2d Dep’t 2010).[75] . CPLR 2101(c).[76] . Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1a. [77] . CPLR 2101(d).[78] . CPLR 2101(g)......