Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Steven SPITZER, Jr., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 2166 BRONX PARK EAST CORPS., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 1, 2001, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint or, alternatively, to strike the complaint for failure to timely disclose the existence of a witness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants in this slip and fall case moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's testimony was insufficient to raise an issue as to whether they had notice of the alleged hazard. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from his father stating that the muddy water and additional debris which plaintiff testified accumulated subsequent to his departure in the morning, had been on the stair for at least two hours during the period of time that defendant's employees purportedly inspected the building staircase. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment for lack of notice, defendants were required to make a prima facie showing which affirmatively established the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Fox v. Kamal Corp., 271 A.D.2d 485, 706 N.Y.S.2d 142). Here, the testimony of the purported building superintendent that he had inspected the stairways of the subject building twice on the day of the accident, along with plaintiff's evidence regarding the existence of muddy water and long-standing debris on the staircase raised an issue of fact as to whether the complained of condition had existed long enough for defendants to have discovered and remedied it (see, Gordon v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774). It was a proper exercise of the motion court's discretion to consider plaintiff's evidence, while striking plaintiff's note of issue and giving defendants an opportunity to depose the witness. Preclusion is a drastic remedy and was properly denied absent any demonstration that plaintiff's conduct was willful and contumacious (see, Hanson v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 217, 642 N.Y.S.2d 272).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 12, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)