Opinion
335 303373/07.
02-25-2016
Rosa INGLES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ARCHITRON DESIGNERS AND BUILDERS, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
Popkin & Popkin, LLP, New York (Eric F. Popkin of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent.
Popkin & Popkin, LLP, New York (Eric F. Popkin of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered October 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiff's brief, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a defective roadway in front of buildings located at 330 and 340 W. 28th Street, in Manhattan. Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not perform any work at the location of plaintiff's alleged fall, by submitting, among other things, the affidavit of its vice president, who asserted that the work was performed in front of 360 W. 28th Street, and did not extend to the location where plaintiff allegedly fell (see Melcher v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 376, 377, 832 N.Y.S.2d 186 1st Dept.2007 ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The permits issued to defendant allowing it to pave a maximum of 100 feet of roadway do not raise an issue of fact as to whether it actually paved that amount or whether the work it performed encompassed the area of plaintiff's fall (see Bermudez v. City of New York, 21 A.D.3d 258, 799 N.Y.S.2d 497 1st Dept.2005 ). Further, the affidavit of defendant's vice president does not contradict his deposition testimony.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, GISCHE, JJ., concur.