BRIGUGLIO v. FSP 787 SEVENTH LLC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered July 29, 2024, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that the decedent's hearsay statements to plaintiff and plaintiff's expert identifying the cause and location of her accident were admissible on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  These hearsay statements were corroborated by the testimony of the witness who was with the decedent when she fell;  plaintiff's testimony regarding his own observations of the accident site;  and photographs of the site after the accident, including a photo of the decedent pointing to the location where she fell (see Gardell v. Arden Ave. Homeowners Assn., 228 A.D.3d 834, 836, 214 N.Y.S.3d 64 [2d Dept. 2024];  Kontorinakis v. 27–10 30th Realty, LLC, 172 A.D.3d 835, 836, 101 N.Y.S.3d 50 [2d Dept. 2019];  see also Koren v. Weihs, 201 A.D.2d 268, 269, 607 N.Y.S.2d 257 [1st Dept. 1994]).

Since the decedent's hearsay statements and corroborating evidence identified the alleged defect and provided sufficient facts and circumstances from which causation could be reasonably inferred (see Haibi v. 790 Riverside Dr. Owners, Inc., 156 A.D.3d 144, 147, 64 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2017]), defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Gardell, 228 A.D.3d at 835–836, 214 N.Y.S.3d 64;  Kontorinakis, 172 A.D.3d at 836, 101 N.Y.S.3d 50).  Accordingly, this Court need not consider the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985]), including plaintiff's expert's report opining that defendants’ negligence in failing to remedy the alleged sidewalk defect was a proximate cause of the decedent's fall.