From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dubiel v. Parkchester Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 21, 2001
284 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 21, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered June 13, 2000, which granted the motion of defendants-respondents Parkchester Management Corp. and Parkchester Apartments Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and denied the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of defendants-appellants-respondents Parkchester South Condominium and Parkchester South Condominium, Inc, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants-appellants-respondents, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants-respondents dismissing the complaint as against them.

Eugene A. Gaer, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

Steven H. Kaplan, for defendants-respondents.

Michael J. Boranian, for defendants-appellants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.


The complaint alleges that plaintiff's decedents, Pauline and Victor Dubiel, were injured in the hallway of their building when they were struck by an elevator door. The Dubiels, however, both died before they could be deposed, and there is no competent evidence in the record as to how the alleged accident occurred. Although plaintiff states that there is a witness to the alleged accident, plaintiff did not, in opposing appellants' cross motion, submit an affidavit of the claimed witness, but instead merely set forth the substance of the witness's anticipated trial testimony. An attorney's bald assertion of what will be testified to at trial is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Cabrera v. Ferranti, 89 A.D.2d 546, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 869). Accordingly, in view of plaintiff's failure to raise a triable issue as to whether the decedents' harm was attributable to the negligence of any of defendants, the complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Dubiel v. Parkchester Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 21, 2001
284 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Dubiel v. Parkchester Management Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DUBIEL, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. PARKCHESTER…

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

Date published: Jun 21, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 413

Citing Cases

Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car

In this case, as there is no evidence as to the source of the information in the report, whether that person…