Rodriguez v. Jones
| Decision Date | 14 May 1996 |
| Citation | 227 A.D.2d 220,642 N.Y.S.2d 267 |
| Parties | Virginia RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James K. JONES, et al., Defendants-Respondents, and The City of New York, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robin Heaney, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael Conforti, for defendants-respondents.
Before WALLACH, J.P., and ROSS, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered January 17, 1995, which granted defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS Court properly refused to consider plaintiff's correction sheet to her deposition testimony, in which she claimed that the hole over which she tripped was in the street and not, as she had testified, on the sidewalk in front of the house owned by defendants, on the ground that the correction sheet lacked a statement of the reasons for making the corrections (CPLR 3116[a]. Nor are we persuaded by the reason that was offered in plaintiff's opposition to the motion, that she has difficulty communicating in English. The record shows that plaintiff testified through an interpreter whose adequacy was never challenged by her lawyer, acknowledged having fallen in the street more than on the single occasion that she wants to correct, and fully comprehended the questions posed to her. There being no issue that defendants' driveway extended out to the street (cf., e.g., La Porta v. Thompson, 178 A.D.2d 735, 577 N.Y.S.2d 174), it cannot be said that defendants made a special use of the street, and the consequence of plaintiff's admission must be summary judgment in favor of defendants (see, Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 196-197, 627 N.Y.S.2d 4).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lieblich v. St. Peter's Hosp. of Albany
...56 A.D.3d 438, 439, 866 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2008]; Garcia v. Stickel, 37 A.D.3d 368, 368–369, 831 N.Y.S.2d 380 [2007]; Rodriguez v. Jones, 227 A.D.2d 220, 220, 642 N.Y.S.2d 267 [1996] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the errata sheet. That said, Sup......
-
Boyce v. Vazquez
...right to change deposition testimony provided that they do so in accordance with CPLR former 3116(a) (compare, Rodriguez v. Jones, 227 A.D.2d 220, 642 N.Y.S.2d 267; see, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac § 3116.02). Decedent also contends that the corrections should not be considered b......
-
Woodie v. Azteca International Corporation, 2007 NY Slip Op 33094(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 9/26/2007)
...within the prescribed sixty days, without showing good cause, or fails to gives a credible reason for the change. Rodriguez v. Jones, 227 A.D.2d 220 (1st Dept. 1996)(changed location where plaintiff tripped without explanation; language barrier no excuse because of interpreter); Garcia v. S......
- Midlantic Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Home-Aide Distributors, Inc.