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.
Isaac TILES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered December 4, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff tripped over an elevation between adjoining sidewalk slabs, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant abutting property owner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment simply because plaintiff, at his deposition, was unable to say with certainty that the reason for his fall was the elevation in the sidewalk, which was observed by plaintiff after he fell and photographically documented; indeed, its existence and dangerous nature were not disputed on this motion (compare, e.g., Leary v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 218 A.D.2d 686, 630 N.Y.S.2d 554). This being the case, it was not plaintiff's burden in opposing the motion to show, in the first instance, that he fell over the elevation; rather, it was defendant's burden to show, in the first instance, that the alleged sidewalk defect was not the cause of plaintiff's fall (see, Buckle v. Buhre Ave. Foods, 232 A.D.2d 269, 648 N.Y.S.2d 100; cf., Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank, 278 N.Y. 1, 7, 14 N.E.2d 828). No such prima facie showing having been made, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 17, 1999
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)