Appellate Division, First Department · October 27, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 06266
Santana v Emerald 85-87 Vermilyea, LLC
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 06266
Holding The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendants established they lacked actual or constructive notice of the defect. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as his affidavits contradicted his deposition testimony and his post-filing allegations regarding handrails were untimely.
The court’s words
defendants established prima facie that they were entitled to summary judgment, as they sustained their initial burden of demonstrating that they did not cause, create, or have actual or constructive notice of a defect
2026 NY Slip Op 06266, at the official text
plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. After the note of issue was filed plaintiff made unpleaded allegations that the staircase's handrails and tread widths did not comply with the applicable code
2026 NY Slip Op 06266, at the official text
plaintiff's wife stated in her affidavit that portions of the subject step "were loose" and needed repair eight months before the accident, but this testimony directly conflicts with plaintiff's earlier deposition testimony
2026 NY Slip Op 06266, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, First Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | October 27, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 06266 |
| Area of law | Personal Injury and Negligence |
| Week | Week ending October 31, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 06266 |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 1540 |
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, Santana v Emerald 85-87 Vermilyea, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 06266 (Appellate Division, First Department, October 27, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-06266/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch works