Guiterrez v. Iannacci
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Plowden v. Stevens Partners, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Flores v. 1298 Grand, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People ex rel. Smith v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Pesce v. Fernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Maglione v. Seabreeze By Water, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Maglione v. Seabreeze By Water, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Hod v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Hod v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Knudsen v. Mamaroneck Post No. 90 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Noel v. Starrett City, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Martone v. Shields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Costello v. Zaidman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Reiff v. Beechwood Browns Road Building Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Denicola v. Costello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated December 7, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants’ argument that they were not liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff Humberto Guiterrez (hereinafter the plaintiff) because they were out-of-possession landlords was raised for the first time in their reply papers. Since the plaintiffs did not have a fair opportunity to respond to that contention, the argument is not properly before us and will not be addressed (see Johnston v Continental Broker-Dealer Corp., 287 AD2d 546 [2001]; Tobias v Manginelli, 266 AD2d 532 [1999]).
The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was unable to identify what caused him to slip (see Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff alleged that he would not have fallen if the defendants had equipped his front steps with handrails, and the plaintiffs’ expert opined that handrails were required by nationally accepted safety standards. “However, the plaintiff[s] failed to present any evidence connecting any allegedly unsafe condition to [his] fall” (id. at 220; see Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d 394 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Crane, J.E, Gold-stein, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.