KASSAI v. TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered January 6, 2025, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In support of their motion, defendants submitted the transcripts of plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–h and at depositions in this case, thereby adopting them as accurate (see Gkoumas v. Lewis Constr. & Architectural Mill Work, 233 A.D.3d 609, 609, 222 N.Y.S.3d 443 [1st Dept. 2024];  Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC, 209 A.D.3d 596, 597, 177 N.Y.S.3d 32 [1st Dept. 2022];  Franklin v. Chalov, 209 A.D.3d 524, 525, 177 N.Y.S.3d 12 [1st Dept. 2022];  Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. [NY], L.P., 208 A.D.3d 1075, 1079, 175 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept. 2022]).  Plaintiff's testimony that he was informed by a rink attendant after his accident that five other accidents had occurred that day in the same area as his accident raised issues of fact as to constructive notice (see generally Velocci v. Stop & Shop, 188 A.D.3d 436, 439, 133 N.Y.S.3d 569 [1st Dept. 2020]).  This testimony was not hearsay, as it conveyed an opposing-party statement (CPLR 4549;  see BL Doe 5 v. Fleming, 229 A.D.3d 1076, 1078–1080, 215 N.Y.S.3d 628 [4th Dept. 2024];  Broome Lender LLC v. Empire Broome LLC, 220 A.D.3d 611, 611, 197 N.Y.S.3d 208 [1st Dept. 2023]).

In addition, Kaplan's attestation to seeing multiple other skaters fall and be injured in the same area that plaintiff later fell, and to seeing each of those other skaters being tended to by rink attendants, also raises issues of fact as to defendants' constructive notice of a dangerous, recurring condition (see generally Velocci, 188 A.D.3d at 439, 133 N.Y.S.3d 569).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.