Plaintiff alleged that she sustained an injury when she tripped and fell on a depression/pothole in a parking lot of a busy shopping center. Our firm argued that summary judgment was appropriate as to our client, who had been retained to perform pothole repairs at the shopping center. Partner Stuart Glass argued that our client neither created the allegedly dangerous condition, nor did it negligently repair any condition prior to the accident. In addition, our client did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the Plaintiff to fall. In granting summary judgment, the Court adopted our arguments in its decision concerning the co-defendant’s opposition relying on inadmissible hearsay deposition testimony, and held that it did not raise the requisite question of fact to defeat the motion. In preparing the motion, Mr. Glass recognized and adopted arguments concerning hearsay statements that he has made in multiple trials for use in motion practice.
