From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casteneda v. Rubell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.).


This is a negligence action. The complaint alleges that on or about November 28, 1985, the infant plaintiff "was caused to fall" because of the negligence of the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the defendant University had sold the premises more than three weeks prior to the accident and had no control over the premises. In response, the plaintiffs submitted only an affidavit by an attorney with no knowledge of the facts, accompanied by photographs, alleging that the defendant University had created a defective walkway condition which the infant plaintiff tripped over. There was no affidavit by someone with knowledge supporting either the conclusion as to the said defendant's creation of the condition or the way in which the accident occurred. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Casteneda v. Rubell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Casteneda v. Rubell

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CASTENEDA, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, YOLANDA…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 222

Citing Cases

Silverman v. Clark

In Clark's papers however, he explained that his reference to "this type of injury" meant a spinal injury…