In <i>Ravagnan v. One Ninety Realty Co</i>., the plaintiff claims that she was injured when her foot got caught in a three-inch gap between two wooden shunt boards causing her to fall. The plaintiff sued various defendants alleging that they had notice of the alleged dangerous condition. After discovery, several defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that they did not create the condition, nor did they have notice of the alleged defect. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff introduced an affidavit from her daughter stating that she observed the gap several months prior. This witness had not been previously identified. In reversing the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion, the First Department emphasized the importance of discovery exchanges and responding to court orders. The court went as far as to preclude the plaintiff from offering the affidavit as evidence since the witness had not previously been disclosed, despite court orders directing the exchange of such information.
Thanks to Lora Gleicher for her contribution to this post.