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.
Ana RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered January 30, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by hazards on a staircase in premises owned and operated by defendant, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In support of its motion for summary judgment made after plaintiff had filed a note of issue, defendant submitted the affidavit of its supervisor of caretakers that no reports of liquid spills, debris or other hazards on the staircase were made for either the date of the accident or the previous day. Defendant also relied on plaintiff's testimony at her 50-h hearing and examination before trial that she did not observe the alleged hazards on the staircase when she used it the previous afternoon and that she knew of no one who had observed the hazards prior to her fall. This testimony was consistent with plaintiff's response to a preliminary conference order directing the parties to exchange the names and addresses of all witnesses. Nevertheless, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a previously undisclosed building resident stating that she saw the alleged hazards on the staircase on each of the two days prior to the accident. The motion court properly refused to consider this affidavit. Plaintiff did not seek to vacate her note of issue and identifies no “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” warranting additional pretrial proceedings (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d] ). In any event, the proffered affidavit “can only be considered to have been tailored to avoid the consequences of [plaintiff's] earlier testimony,” and, as such, fails to raise a genuine issue of fact as to notice (Perez v. Bronx Park S. Assoc., 285 A.D.2d 402, 728 N.Y.S.2d 33, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 610, 740 N.Y.S.2d 694, 767 N.E.2d 151; see also Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, 487 N.Y.S.2d 105, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 701, 496 N.Y.S.2d 425, 487 N.E.2d 282).
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: April 24, 2003
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)