Friedman v. Bhl Realty Corp..
| Decision Date | 14 April 2011 |
| Citation | 922 N.Y.S.2d 293,83 A.D.3d 510,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02954 |
| Parties | Robert FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.BHL REALTY CORP., Defendant–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Law Office of David Ascher, New York (David Ascher of counsel), for appellant.Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LP, New York (Yolanda L. Ayala of counsel), for respondent.MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 11, 2010, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Even in light of the arguments raised and evidence submitted inappropriately for the first time in reply ( see Azzopardi v. American Blower Corp., 192 A.D.2d 453, 454, 596 N.Y.S.2d 404 [1993] ), defendant failed to meet its burden to show prima facie that plaintiff's cause of action has no merit. In support of its argument that there was no dangerous condition on the exterior staircase on which plaintiff fell, allegedly because of a pooling of water on a cracked step, defendant relied exclusively upon the opinion of an expert who measured the coefficient of friction of the stairs when they were dry and conceded that there is no available test to measure the friction of wet surfaces ( see Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 A.D.3d 462, 466, 884 N.Y.S.2d 402 [2009]; Styles v. General Motors Corp., 20 A.D.3d 338, 339, 799 N.Y.S.2d 38 [2005] ).
In any event, plaintiff's expert offered opinions that conflict with those of defendant's experts, thereby precluding summary judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villongco v. Tompkins Square Bagels
...(CPLR § 3212[b] ) sufficient to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in its favor (Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp., 83 A.D.3d 510, 922 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept 2011] ; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985] ). Thus, the proponent of a......
-
Chamberlain v. Guardian Serv. Indus., Inc.
...(CPLR §3212[b]) sufficient to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in its favor (Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp., 83 A.D.3d 510, 922 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept. 2011]; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]). Thus, the proponent of a mo......
-
Yook v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
...Corp., 114 A.D.3d 420, 420 (1st Dep't 2104); Hernandez v. 21 Realty Co., 113 A.D.3d 503, 503 (1st Dep't 2014); Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp., 83 A.D.3d 510, 510 (1st Dep't 2011).V. CONCLUSION For all the reasons explained above, the court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment. C.P.L......
-
Turner v. Manhattan Bowery Mgmt. Corp., 158103/2014.
...(CPLR § 3212[b] ) sufficient to warrant the court as a matter of law to direct judgment in its favor (Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 510, 922 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept 2011] ; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985] ). The summary judgment movan......