Legal Opinion

Deutsch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 26, 2010PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Assuming the report of plaintiffs expert should have been considered by the motion court on plaintiffs motion to renew, the report, which was based on an inspection of the steps conducted almost six years after the accident, does not raise an issue of fact as to causation. Plaintiff testified that he does not know why he fell, and the expert’s opinion that plaintiff fell because of dangerously uneven riser heights is speculative in the absence of evidence tending to show the existence of the alleged uneven risers at the time plaintiff fell (see Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372, 373…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Kane v. Estia Greek Restaurant, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Telfeyan v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Murphy v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  2. Rodriguez v. Leggett Holdings, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  3. Rodriguez v. Leggett Holdings, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API