Barraillier v. City of New York, 12 A.D.3d 168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Barraillier v. City of New York, 12 A.D.3d 168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Maloney v. Rodriguez (nyappdiv, 2017-12-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maloney v. Rodriguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
We reject plaintiff’s contention that Rodriguez’s identification of himself as a police officer during the encounter raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion with respect to the issue of scope of employment (see White v Thomas, 12 AD3d 168, 168 [1st Dept 2004]; Schilt v New York City Tr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Auto Mkt. of Jamaica, N.Y.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Moreover, since M&T Bank’s officer did not indicate the source of her knowledge that the signature on the certificate of title did not belong to an officer of M&T Bank, her averment is without any probative value (see Barraillier v City of New York, 12 AD3d 168, 169 [2004]; Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., 126 AD2d 477, 479 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barton v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
(See, for example, Campos v City of New York, 32 AD3d 287, 291-292 [1st Dept 2006]; Pungello v City of New York, 18 AD3d 216, 216 [1st Dept 2005]; White v Thomas, 12 AD3d 168, 168 [1st Dept 2004]; Seymour v Gateway Prods., 295 AD2d 278, 278 [1st Dept 2002]; Johnson v City of New York, 269 AD2d 359, 359-360 [2d Dept 2000].) The difficulty here is that, despite the City’s assertion, neither plaintiff in his section 50-h testimony nor Rossler in his affidavit states that the shooting occurred as a result of a private dispute between them or between Rossler and a third person, nor does either te…
discussed Cited "see" Arias v. Skyline Windows, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Although an “affidavit [ ] indicating that a search of business records had demonstrated a negative is admissible” and can substantiate a summary judgment movant’s initial burden (Dickson v City of New York, 43 AD3d 809 [2007]; see Piccinich v New York Stock Exch., 257 AD2d 438 [1999]), here, the affidavit of defendant’s director of field operations for volume was inconsistent with his own deposition testimony and indicated a lack of “familiarity with the . . . project at issue” (Barraillier v City of New York, 12 AD3d 168, 169 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Gould (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
A conclusory statement in an affidavit will not suffice ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Jones , 139 AD3d 520, 524 [1st Dept 2016]), and where an affiant's knowledge is based on unidentified and unproduced records, "the affidavit lacks any probative value" and cannot be the basis for an award of summary judgment ( Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp. , 126 AD2d 477, 479 [1st Dept 1987]; see also Barraillier v City of New York , 12 AD3d 168, 169 [1st Dept 2004]; Great Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carmen Barraillier
v.
City of New York, Judlau Contracting Inc., and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 4, 2004.
12 A.D.3d 168
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J), entered April 9, 2004, which denied defendant Bovis Lend Lease LMB’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[*169] Bovis failed to establish that there were no issues of fact concerning its contract to perform or supervise any construction work in the area where plaintiff tripped and fell (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Bovis did not set forth a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment because the supporting affidavit of its executive vice-president did not indicate the sources (e.g., documents he may have searched or reviewed, or persons he consulted) of his familiarity with the construction project at issue, or the company’s purported lack of involvement with same (Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., 126 AD2d 477, 479 [1987]; compare Piccinich v New York Stock Exch., 257 AD2d 438, 439 [1999]). Furthermore, the affidavit was insufficient because the officer claimed that Bovis did not have a project at the accident location on July 4, 2002, when, in fact, plaintiff asserted in her complaint that the accident took place on July 24 of that year.

The motion court properly ruled that the parties were entitled to depose Bovis and review the work records over which it had exclusive control (see Gaughan v Chase Manhattan Bank, 204 AD2d 67 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.