Muniz v. New York City Housing Authority, 2006-03870.
| Decision Date | 13 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-03870. |
| Parties | EMERITO MUNIZ, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on urine or beer on the vestibule floor of the defendant's premises early on a Sunday morning. According to the defendant's caretaker, when he inspected the area the previous day, right before the end of his shift, he did not observe any liquid on the floor of the vestibule.
The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Rivera v 2160 Realty Co., L.L.C., 4 NY3d 837 [2005], revg 10 AD3d 503 [2004]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant's showing, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiff's wife could not be considered in determining this motion because the plaintiff failed to properly disclose his wife as a notice witness in his discovery responses (see Williams v ATA Hous. Corp., 19 AD3d 406, 407 [2005]; Concetto v Pedalino, 308 AD2d 470, 470-471 [2003]; Andujar v Benenson Inv. Co., 299 AD2d 503 [2002]).
The plaintiff's further contention that this was a recurrent condition such as would give constructive notice to the defendant, an argument not dependent on his wife's affidavit, is without merit (see Gloria v MGM Emerald Enters., 298 AD2d 355, 356 [2002]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kubicsko v. Westchester Cnty. Elec., Inc.
...646, 492 N.E.2d 774;Nesterenko v. Starrett City Assoc., L.P., 111 A.D.3d 806, 975 N.Y.S.2d 123;Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 38 A.D.3d 628, 831 N.Y.S.2d 513). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 ......
-
Manavazian v. Pietromonaco
...in determining the motion, since he was not identified as a relevant witness during discovery (see Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 38 A.D.3d 628, 831 N.Y.S.2d 513 ; see also Lara v. City of New York, 135 A.D.3d 712, 713, 24 N.Y.S.3d 126 ; Rizos v. Galini Seafood Rest., 89 A.D.3d 1004, 1......
-
Awai v. Benchmark Constr. Serv., Inc.
...A.D.3d 796, 797, 987 N.Y.S.2d 72 ; Rizos v. Galini Seafood Rest., 89 A.D.3d 1004, 933 N.Y.S.2d 703 ; Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 38 A.D.3d 628, 831 N.Y.S.2d 513 ). Here, however, Naclerio, the plaintiff's nonparty witness, was not a notice witness, as he did not witness the occurren......
-
Henry v. Higgins
...plaintiff's discovery responses ( see Rizos v. Galini Seafood Rest., 89 A.D.3d 1004, 933 N.Y.S.2d 703;Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 38 A.D.3d 628, 831 N.Y.S.2d 513;Williams v. ATA Hous. Corp., 19 A.D.3d 406, 407, 796 N.Y.S.2d 128;Concetto v. Pedalino, 308 A.D.2d 470, 470–471, 764 N.Y.......