Estrategia Corp. v Lafayette Commercial Condo

Annotate this Case
Estrategia Corp. v Lafayette Commercial Condo 2012 NY Slip Op 04095 Decided on May 29, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 29, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7769 100147/08 591126/09

[*1]Estrategia Corp., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants,

v

Lafayette Commercial Condo, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. [And a Third-Party Action]




Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L.
Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, New York (Amelia K.
Brankov of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered December 22, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability on the negligence cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs' failure to plead the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the complaint does not render the doctrine unavailable at trial. They pleaded negligence, and the circumstances warrant the doctrine's application (compare Ianotta v Tishman Speyer Props., Inc., 46 AD3d 297 [2007], with Yousefi v Rudeth Realty, LLC, 61 AD3d 677 [2009]).

However, while plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to give rise to a permissible inference of negligence on defendant's part under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]), they have not shown that the inference of negligence is inescapable or that defendant failed to raise any material issue of fact in rebuttal thereof (see Morejon v Rais Constr. Co., 7 NY3d 203, 209 [2006]; Shinshine Corp. v Kinney Sys., 173 AD2d 293 [1991]).

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

ENTERED: MAY 29, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.