Legal Opinion

Luciano v. Deco Towers Associates LLC

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

Decided February 28, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Defendants’ respective moving papers satisfied their initial burdens of establishing prima facie their lack of knowledge of the alleged defective condition. Defendants submitted evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained, and that they had no notice of a defective condition.

In opposition to the motions, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, plaintiffs expert’s affidavit was lacking any specificity, misstated the nature of the alleged misleveling, and was wholly conclusory (Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384 [2007]; Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop.,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Santoni v. Bertelsmann Property, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  2. Gjonaj v. Otis Elevator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fasano v. Euclid Hall Associates, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
  2. Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  4. Gell-Tejada v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  5. Gell-Tejada v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API