Preview
hk DIV INDEX NO. 154684/2017
UD 0
N SIGE:DOC DIRK SOT CLE! RK O01 714] 72019
s0i8 11:122 AM2 RECEP -NVSCERS 4689289201
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 125 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH PART IAS MOTION 52EFM
Justice
Xx INDEX NO. 154684/2017
ELLEN GILMAN,
MOTION DATE 09/26/2018
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
ays
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A
CORPORATION, WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, THE
SYNOD OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE PRESBYTERIAN DECISION AND ORDER
CHURCH, PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK CITY, REV. ROBERT
L. BRASHEAR,
Defendant.
X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 114, 120, 121
were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.
Upon the foregoing papers, defendant City of New York (City) moves for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint insofar as asserted against it.
“The City established prima facie that it did not own the real property abutting the sidewalk on which plaintiff fell . .
. and that therefore, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 (c), it was not liable for plaintiff's injuries”
(Rodriguez v City of New York, 70 AD3d 450, 450 [Ist Dept 2010]). The plaintiff and co-defendant failed to raise an issue
of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980] [mere conclusions, expressions of hope
or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient”]). The Court rejects the contention that further discovery is
needed, or that this motion is premature, as the opponents to the motion failed to identify anything to show that further
disclosure from the City would lead to relevant evidence on the issue of its liability (see DaSilva v Haks Engineers,
Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., 125 AD3d 480, 482 [Ist Dept 2015]).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the City’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is
dismissed in its entirety as against said defendant; and it is further ORDERED that the matter be reassigned to a non-City
part. This shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.
1/8/2019
DATE ALEXANDER M. ISCH, J.S.C.
NOE!
Tisch
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION pow. AL
GRANTED CO DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER ‘SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT O REFERENCE
154684/2017 GILMAN, ELLEN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 003
EXHIBIT
lof1
Preview
hk DIV INDEX NO. 154684/2017 UD 0 N SIGE:DOC DIRK SOT CLE! RK O01 714] 72019 s0i8 11:122 AM2 RECEP -NVSCERS 4689289201 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 125 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH PART IAS MOTION 52EFM Justice Xx INDEX NO. 154684/2017 ELLEN GILMAN, MOTION DATE 09/26/2018 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 ays THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, THE SYNOD OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE PRESBYTERIAN DECISION AND ORDER CHURCH, PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK CITY, REV. ROBERT L. BRASHEAR, Defendant. X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 114, 120, 121 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY. Upon the foregoing papers, defendant City of New York (City) moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. “The City established prima facie that it did not own the real property abutting the sidewalk on which plaintiff fell . . . and that therefore, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 (c), it was not liable for plaintiff's injuries” (Rodriguez v City of New York, 70 AD3d 450, 450 [Ist Dept 2010]). The plaintiff and co-defendant failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980] [mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient”]). The Court rejects the contention that further discovery is needed, or that this motion is premature, as the opponents to the motion failed to identify anything to show that further disclosure from the City would lead to relevant evidence on the issue of its liability (see DaSilva v Haks Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., 125 AD3d 480, 482 [Ist Dept 2015]). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the City’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety as against said defendant; and it is further ORDERED that the matter be reassigned to a non-City part. This shall constitute the decision and order of the Court. 1/8/2019 DATE ALEXANDER M. ISCH, J.S.C. NOE! Tisch CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION pow. AL GRANTED CO DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER ‘SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT O REFERENCE 154684/2017 GILMAN, ELLEN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 003 EXHIBIT lof1