From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berchini v. Silverite Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-03704

Submitted December 5, 2001.

December 24, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Palma, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated November 21, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mary Frances G. Marino of counsel), for appellant.

Dankner Milstein, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Biedermann, Hoenig, Massamillo Ruff, New York, N.Y. (Evan R. Sosler of counsel), for defendant-respondent Silverite Construction Company, Inc.

Malapero Prisco, New York, N.Y. (Joseph J. Prisco and Glenn E. Richardson of counsel), for defendant-respondent Michael Baker, Jr., of New York, Inc.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was not negligent in the happening of the accident. The vague and conclusory assertions in the affidavits of the appellant's president were insufficient to make a prima facie showing that the appellant did not leave a bag from which sand-like material had spilled on the floor causing the plaintiff to slip and fall at a site where it had performed construction work (see, Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 N.Y.2d 1062; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851).

Furthermore, the other parties established that they have not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery into several relevant issues, some of which are exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant (see, CPLR 3212[f]; Firesearch Corp. v. Micro Computer Controls Corp., 240 A.D.2d 365; Urcan v. Cocarelli, 234 A.D.2d 537; Halpern Dev. Venture v. Board of Trustees of Vil of N. Tarrytown, 222 A.D.2d 652).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Berchini v. Silverite Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Berchini v. Silverite Construction Company

Case Details

Full title:PABLO BERCHINI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 24, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 405

Citing Cases

Square Mile Structured Debt (One) LLC v. Swig

In summary, defendants' claim of their own lack of intent to defraud is based on wholly conclusory affidavits…

Forssell v. Lerner

Where, as here, a claim arises out of the means and methods of the work, a property owner may be held liable…