Saks v. Yeshiva of Spring Valley, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
βIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated May 7, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
On December 17, 1994, the plaintiff allegedly fell on a sidewalk owned or maintained by the defendant. The defendant, in support of its motion for summary judgment, submit
Accordingly, there is no proof that this alleged defective condition existed either as of December 17, 1994, the date of the accident, or, as of any date sufficiently in advance of December 17, 1994, as to justify the inference that the defendant had constructive notice of it. Although the plaintiff testified that these photos depicted the scene of his accident, he did not actually testify that the condition of the sidewalk as shown in those photos was substantially the same as its condition on December 17, 1994, and these photos are therefore not competent evidence (see, Davis v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 498, 499; cf., Ruiz v 195 Prop. Assocs., 245 AD2d 224). Under these circumstances, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment (see generally, Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70, 75-76; see also, Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.