P.F. filed a personal-injury case against a cooperative and others following an accident that occurred on a step between the lobby of the cooperative building and the office entrance of a doctor who leased space on the premises. P.F., who was a long-time patient, fell while descending the step after an appointment. During her deposition (questioning under oath), P.F. admitted she didn’t know how or why she lost her balance and confirmed she hadn’t tripped or slipped on anything.
When the defendants later moved for pre-trial relief in their favor (via a motion for summary judgment), they argued P.F.’s deposition testimony negated the element of causation. They provided evidence, including a photograph of the step, testimony about its safe condition and regular maintenance, and an expert affidavit which reinforced that the step was safe and met accepted standards.
After the New York County Supreme Court granted the defendants' request and dismissed the complaint, P.F. appealed. The Appellate Division, First Department, agreed that P.F.'s affidavit, which detailed conditions of the step that allegedly contributed to her fall, contradicted her prior testimony and created only a “feigned issue of fact.” Without a causal connection between her fall and the alleged defects, her expert's opinion was deemed incompetent evidence. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiffs' expert did not cite any authority for his opinion, rendering it of no probative value.
Was that a step in the wrong direction?
# # #
DECISION