Corrigan v. Stellar Mgmt., LLC, 99 A.D.3d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Corrigan v. Stellar Mgmt., LLC, 99 A.D.3d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gomez v. Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC (nyappdiv, 2026-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gomez v. Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Tulla's argument lacks merits because the motion papers and "pleadings were filed electronically and thus were available to the parties and the court" ( see Studio A Showroom, LLC v Yoon , 99 AD3d 632, 632 [1st Dept 2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andrew Corrigan
v.
Stellar Management, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 25, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 632
Published

Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement[*633] to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that despite their placement of orange-netted wooden barricades around a construction area, and their provision of unobstructed pathways around the area, plaintiff, after consuming several alcoholic beverages, decided to enter the area, causing him to trip and fall over an open and obvious drain hole (see Laluna v DGM Partners, 234 AD2d 519 [2d Dept 1996]; see also Vought v Hemminger, 220 AD2d 580 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 808 [1996]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His testimony that he thought the barricades were meant to keep only schoolchildren out of the construction area is incredible. Further, his statements in his affidavit regarding available routes around the area conflict with his deposition testimony.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.