OFFERED DIFFERENT ADDRESSES AND SHARED DIFFERENT DETAILS
After JV was injured on its property, he sued Con Edison in the New York County Supreme Court. And when he later filed a motion for summary judgment asking that Con Ed be found liable for his injuries, that request was granted by the judge.
But on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, took issue with that outcome. It thought the inconsistencies in the record precluded relief in JV’s favor. Among other things, while he indicated at a deposition that he fell over a grate located in front of 333 West 46th Street, his sworn notice of claim alleged that he fell at 346 West 46th Street and made no mention of a grate.
Additionally, because his medical records had “differing statements,” as did the other evidence in the record, the AD1 thought there were “issues of fact” which warranted a formal hearing or trial and “unanimously reversed” the finding of liability.
Did JV fail to speak truth to power?
# # #
DECISION