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.
Joan ISRAEL, et al., respondents, v. FAIRHARBOR OWNERS, INC., et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 29, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff Joan Israel (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she fell on a walkway in the apartment complex owned and maintained by the defendants. The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which revealed that she did not know what caused her to fall until she was shown a defective area of the walkway by two residents of the apartment complex after the accident occurred, who did not witness the accident (see Sanchez v. City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824; Hartman v. Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 A.D.2d 570, 754 N.Y.S.2d 31; Novoni v. La Parma Corp., 278 A.D.2d 393, 717 N.Y.S.2d 379; Barretta v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 A.D.2d 262, 263, 717 N.Y.S.2d 333). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). The affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion was tailored to raise a triable issue of fact and merely raised a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff's earlier admissions (see Sanchez v. City of New York, supra; Lara v. Saint John's Univ., 289 A.D.2d 457, 735 N.Y.S.2d 578; Novoni v. La Parma Corp., supra; Barretta v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, supra at 263, 717 N.Y.S.2d 333).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 05, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)