Luciano v Deco Towers Assoc. LLC

Luciano v Deco Towers Assoc. LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 01495 Decided on February 28, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 28, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. 6759-
6758-104020/07 591147/07 6760N

[*1]Marisol Luciano, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant,

v

Deco Towers Associates LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.




Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C.,
New York (Louise Cherkis of counsel), for Deco Towers
Associates LLC, appellant-respondent.
Gottlieb, Siegel & Schwartz, Bronx (Shane M. Biffar of
counsel), for World Elevator Co., Inc., and New World Elevator, LLC,
appellants-respondents.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Kenneth J.
Gorman of counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 30, 2011, which denied defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court, Justice, and entry date, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend her bill of particulars, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

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, plaintiff's expert's affidavit was lacking any specificity, misstated the nature of the alleged misleveling, and was wholly conclusory (Gjonaj v Otis Elevator Co., 38 AD3d 384 [2007]; [*2]Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 715 [2005]). In view of this disposition, plaintiff's appeal on the question of the amendment to the bill of particulars is dismissed as academic.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 28, 2012

CLERK