Luciano v. Deco Towers Associates LLC
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Fasano v. Euclid Hall Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Gell-Tejada v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Gell-Tejada v. Macy's Retail Holding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
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
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., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 715 [2005]). In view of this disposition, plaintiffs appeal on the question of the amendment to the bill of particulars is dismissed as academic. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.