Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Mankowski v. Two Park Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 18, 1996

225 A.D.2d 673; 639 N.Y.2d 847; 639 N.Y.S.2d 847; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2657

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Rivers v. Birnbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Rivers v. Birnbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Mohamed v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Ortiz-Tulla v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Perez v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Dawson v.Cafiero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Young v. Ai Guo Chen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Lindeman v. Vecchione Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Saks v. Yeshiva of Spring Valley, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Saks v. Yeshiva of Spring Valley, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Mroz v. Ella Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Ortega v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Kowalski v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Roth v. Spletzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Rossi v. Matkovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the use of an expert and any expert affidavit due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to disclosure demands (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257; Bauernfeind v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 195 AD2d 819; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d 434, 435). Accordingly, summary judgment was warranted as the plaintiffs could not make a prima facie showing that the respondents either created the alleged defective condition that caused the injured plaintiff’s fall or that they had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see, e.g., Bauernfeind v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., supra; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; see also, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969; Cafiero v Inserra Supermarkets, 195 AD2d 681, 682, affd 82 NY2d 787; Pirillo v Longwood Assocs., 179 AD2d *674744, 745). Even if this Court were to consider the expert affidavits and photographs which were based on an examination of the steps some two years after the incident, the evidence is wholly conclusory and fails to establish that a hazardous condition existed on the day of the incident or that the respondents had any notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged hazardous condition (see, Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 972, citing Trimarco v Klein, 56 NY2d 98, 106; Anis v Associated Rest. Mgt. Corp., 202 AD2d 459, 460; Drillings v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 AD2d 381, 382).

The appeal from the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as a motion for renewal and reargument, is dismissed. The motion was actually one for reargument as the alleged "new” evidence contained in a second affidavit by the same expert was within the plaintiffs’ knowledge at the time of the original motions (see, Grassel v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 223 AD2d 803; Drillings v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., supra, at 382; Dunn v American Home Assur. Co., 158 AD2d 505, 507). No appeal lies from the denial of reargument.

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.