Molina v. Dimon
| Decision Date | 30 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | 9148,Index 300435/11 |
| Citation | 99 N.Y.S.3d 34,171 A.D.3d 675 |
| Parties | Francisco MOLINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel L. DIMON, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
171 A.D.3d 675
99 N.Y.S.3d 34
Francisco MOLINA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel L. DIMON, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
9148
Index 300435/11
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: APRIL 30, 2019
Law Office of William A. Cerbone, Elmsford (Barry R. Strutt, White Plains, of counsel), for appellant.
McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Andrew Zajac of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Gesmer, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on a slippery mold condition on a porch step at defendants' home when he was delivering a package. Defendants demonstrated through the testimony of defendant
Samuel Dimon that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as they and their invitees regularly used the steps without incident and were not aware of any slippery mold condition (see Lovell v. Thompson, 143 A.D.3d 511, 39 N.Y.S.3d 420 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Defendants also relied on plaintiff's deposition testimony that before the accident, the porch step appeared safe, the porch area was dry, and there was no dirt or debris, which indicates that the alleged defective condition was not visible and apparent so as to constitute constructive notice (see Vasquez v. Nealco Towers LLC, 160 A.D.3d 496, 74 N.Y.S.3d 533 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of plaintiff's experts that there was mold, moss, and mildew on the steps were speculative and conclusory, as they were inconsistent with plaintiff's testimony regarding the condition of the steps (see Feaster–Lewis v. Rotenberg, 93 A.D.3d 421, 422, 939 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 803, 946 N.Y.S.2d 105, 969 N.E.2d 222 [2012] ). Moreover, the opinion of the experts that the moss was slippery is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Graves
...In any event, any error was harmless (see99 N.Y.S.3d 38 People v. Cornelius , 20 N.Y.3d 1089, 965 N.Y.S.2d 744, 988 N.E.2d 480 [2013] ).171 A.D.3d 675 At both trials, defendant failed to preserve any of his arguments relating to the issue of whether he voluntarily signed various documents w......
-
Expert witnesses
...judgment, in which expert opinions are being submitted, the expert opinion must not be speculative or conclusory. Molina v. Dimon , 171 A.D.3d 675, 99 N.Y.S.3d 34 (1st Dept. 2019) (in a slip and fall action, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, where plaintif ’s experts’......
-
Expert witnesses
...judgment, in which expert opinions are being submitted, the expert opinion must not be speculative or conclusory. Molina v. Dimon , 171 A.D.3d 675, 99 N.Y.S.3d 34 (1st Dept. 2019) (in a slip-and-fall action, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, where plaintiff ’s experts......
-
Expert witnesses
...judgment, in which expert opinions are being submitted, the expert opinion must not be speculative or conclusory. Molina v. Dimon , 171 A.D.3d 675, 99 N.Y.S.3d 34 (1st Dept. 2019) (in a slip and fall action, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, where plaintif ’s experts’......