Caraballo v Kingsbridge Apt. Corp.
2009 NY Slip Op 01293 [59 AD3d 270]
February 19, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


Eduardo Caraballo, Appellant,
v
Kingsbridge Apt. Corp.,Respondent.

[*1]Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, New York, for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered November 15, 2007,which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped on an interior stairway step in defendant'sapartment building, causing him to fall and land on a platform several steps below. Followingdefendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff failed to raise atriable issue of fact as to whether defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's injury. During his2005 deposition, plaintiff was unable to identify any dangerous condition that caused him to slip,stating that he did not see any water on the step where he slipped and only saw a "puddle" on theplatform where he finally landed. While plaintiff introduced two tenants' affidavits that allegedgeneral wetness on the staircase following rainfall, these affidavits not only directly contradictedplaintiff's sworn testimony two years earlier, but failed to mention any complaints made by theaffiants to defendant concerning such alleged conditions. Such self-serving affidavits denote aneffort to avoid the consequences of plaintiff's earlier testimony and are insufficient to defeatdefendant's motion for summary judgment. (See Amaya v Denihan Ownership Co., LLC, 30 AD3d 327,327-328 [2006]; Harty v Lenci, 294 AD2d 296, 298 [2002]; Phillips v BronxLebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318, 320 [2000].) Further, mere speculation and conjecture,rather than admissible evidence, is insufficient to sustain the action (see Mandel v 370Lexington Ave., LLC, [*2]32 AD3d 302, 303 [2006];Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189, 190 [2004]; Segretti v Shorenstein Co.,E., 256 AD2d 234, 235 [1998]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez,Catterson and Renwick, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.