From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 2004
3 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-10344.

Decided January 20, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 3, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Olympia Mechanical Piping Heating Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Goidel Siegel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Goidel and Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Siegel, New York, N.Y. (Stephanie A. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: THOMAS A. ADAMS and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The defendant Olympia Mechanical Piping Heating Corp. (hereinafter Olympia) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by adducing evidence that it did not negligently install a toilet in the plaintiff's apartment approximately 4 1/2 years before her accident ( see Dini v. Imperial Workwear Servs., 300 A.D.2d 279). In opposition to Olympia's prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the affidavit of a purported expert proffered by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff failed to identify the expert in pretrial disclosure, and served the affidavit after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness attesting to the completion of discovery ( see Dawson v. Cafiero, 292 A.D.2d 488, 489; Ortega v. New York City Tr. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 470; Mankowski v. Two Park Co., 225 A.D.2d 673). In any event, the affidavit, which relied upon facts contradicted by the record, and which was speculative and conclusory, did not raise a triable issue of fact ( see Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 972; Mestric v. Martinez Cleaning Co., 306 A.D.2d 449; Maggiotta v. Walsh, 306 A.D.2d 447).

We do not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention, which was raised for the first time on appeal ( see Gorenstein v. Debralaurie Realty Co., 280 A.D.2d 642).

The Supreme Court thus properly granted Olympia's motion for summary judgment.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 2004
3 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Associates

Case Details

Full title:CLARA GRALNIK, appellant, v. BRIGHTON BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 633

Citing Cases

Wartski v. C.W. Post Campus of Long Island

mitted by the plaintiff established that the defendant had only a general awareness that the stairs became…

Sinchi v. Aloia

Salzov. Bedding Showcase, 238 AD2d 180, 181 (1st Dep't 1997); Robinson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d…