Brady v. Casilio
| Decision Date | 16 March 2012 |
| Citation | 940 N.Y.S.2d 396,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01915,93 A.D.3d 1190 |
| Parties | Kim M. BRADY, Plaintiff, v. Pat CASILIO, Rosemary Casilio, Casilio Real Estate & Development Corporation, Delaware Nash Building, LLC, Northwest Bankcorp MHC, Defendants–Appellants,Hunt & Associates 2021, LLC, JJJJJ & Associates, LLC, and M.J. Manzella & Associates, LLC, Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01915
93 A.D.3d 1190
940 N.Y.S.2d 396
Kim M. BRADY, Plaintiff,
v.
Pat CASILIO, Rosemary Casilio, Casilio Real Estate & Development Corporation, Delaware Nash Building, LLC, Northwest Bankcorp MHC, Defendants–Appellants,Hunt & Associates 2021, LLC, JJJJJ & Associates, LLC, and M.J. Manzella & Associates, LLC, Defendants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
March 16, 2012.
[940 N.Y.S.2d 397]
Sugarman Law Firm LLP, Syracuse (Michael A. Riehler of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants Pat Casilio, Rosemary Casilio, Casilio Real Estate & Development Corporation, and Delaware Nash Building, LLC.
The Law Office of Edward M. Eustace, White Plains (Christopher M. Yapchanyk of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant Northwest Bankcorp MHC.
Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak LLP, Buffalo (Neil A. Pawlowski of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
[93 A.D.3d 1190] Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell in a parking lot. Defendants Pat Casilio, Rosemary Casilio, Casilio Real Estate & Development Corporation and Delaware Nash Building, LLC (collectively, Casilio defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, and defendant Northwest Bankcorp MHC (Northwest) cross-moved for the same relief. We agree with the Casilio defendants and Northwest that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion and cross motion, respectively, and we therefore reverse.
According to plaintiff, she fell on the premises at 2987 Delaware Avenue in Kenmore, New York. Defendants Hunt & Associates[93 A.D.3d 1191] 2021 LLC, JJJJJ & Associates, LLC and M.J. Manzella & Associates, LLC (collectively, Hunt defendants) admitted in their answer that they owned that property. The Casilio defendants moved and Northwest cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not own or control the premises upon which the accident allegedly occurred. In support of the motion and cross motion, they submitted the pleadings and the deposition testimony of plaintiff, in which she testified that she slipped and fell in a parking lot, as well as the photograph exhibit from that deposition, which established that the parking lot is adjacent to the property owned or leased by the Casilio defendants and Northwest. We therefore conclude that those defendants met their initial burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donato v. Pasciuta
...979 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2d Dept. 2014]; Shaw v. Rosha Enters., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 1574, 1575, 12 N.Y.S.3d 441 [4th Dept. 2015]; Brady v. Casilio, 93 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 940 N.Y.S.2d 396 [4th Dept. 2012]). It is undisputed that the reporting officer did not observe the accident. Thus the conclusions ......
-
Donato v. Pasciuta
...979 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2d Dept. 2014]; Shaw v. Rosha Enters., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 1574, 1575, 12 N.Y.S.3d 441 [4th Dept. 2015]; Brady v. Casilio, 93 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 940 N.Y.S.2d 396 [4th Dept. 2012]). It is undisputed that the reporting officer did not observe the accident. Thus the conclusions ......
-
Shaw v. Rosha Enters., Inc.
...meet some other exception to the hearsay rule” (Huff v. Rodriguez, 45 A.D.3d 1430, 1432, 846 N.Y.S.2d 841 ; see Brady v. Casilio, 93 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 940 N.Y.S.2d 396 ). Inasmuch as the reporting officer did not witness the accident and was not qualified as an expert, the statements conta......
-
Hedgecock v. Pedro
...i.e., the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories. We [93 A.D.3d 1144] therefore [940 N.Y.S.2d 396] modify the order accordingly. Defendant established that plaintiff had preexisting conditions of migraine headaches and spinal injuries, which w......