From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4791.

April 14, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 11, 2010, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Law Office of David Ascher, New York (David Ascher of counsel), for appellant.

Gallo Vitucci Klar, LP, New York (Yolanda L. Ayala of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.


Even in light of the arguments raised and evidence submitted inappropriately for the first time in reply ( see Azzopardi v American Blower Corp., 192 AD2d 453, 454), defendant failed to meet its burden to show prima facie that plaintiffs cause of action has no merit. In support of its argument that there was no dangerous condition on the exterior staircase on which plaintiff fell, allegedly because of a pooling of water on a cracked step, defendant relied exclusively upon the opinion of an expert who measured the coefficient of friction of the stairs when they were dry and conceded that there is no available test to measure the friction of wet surfaces ( see Pomahac v TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 AD3d 462, 466; Styles v General Motors Corp., 20 AD3d 338, 339).

In any event, plaintiffs expert offered opinions that conflict with those of defendant's experts, thereby precluding summary judgment.


Summaries of

Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Friedman v. BHL Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT FRIEDMAN, Appellant, v. BHL REALTY CORP., Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2954
922 N.Y.S.2d 293

Citing Cases

Mateo v. Yuen

However, Fein failed to identify the basis for the 0.5 coefficient-of-friction value he utilized as a…

Mateo v. Nicholas Xing Hi Yuen

However, Fein failed to identify the basis for the 0.5 coefficient-of-friction value he utilized as a…