Majority
In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, an affidavit of a witness submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion did not constitute an attempt to create a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of the injured plaintiffs prior deposition testimony (see Franklin v Omni Sagamore Hotel, 5 AD3d 348 , 349 [2004]; see also Kievman v Philip, 84 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [2011]; Gleason v City of New York, 68 AD3d 1054 , 1056 [2009]; Tesa v Transit Auth. of City of N.Y., 184 AD2d 421 [1992]; compare Hodgson-Romain v Hunter, 72 AD3d 741 [2010]; Stancil v Supermarkets Gen., 16 AD3d 402 , 402-403 [2005]). Mastro, A.EJ., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Kievman v. Philip 84 AD3d 1031 at 1033 p. 832
- Gleason v. City of New York 68 AD3d 1054 at 1056 p. 832
- Tesa v. Transit Authority 184 AD2d 421 p. 832
- Stancil v. Supermarkets General 16 AD3d 402 at 402-403 p. 832