Case Name: Gladys MENDEZ, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-10-06
Citations: 741 So. 2d 1256
Docket Number: No. 99-0116
Parties: Gladys MENDEZ, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, GERSTEN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 741
Pages: 1256–1257

Head Matter:
Gladys MENDEZ, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee.
No. 99-0116.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 6, 1999.
Kaplan & Miller, P.A.; Deutsch & Blumberg, P.A., and James C. Blecke, for appellant.
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney, and Manny Anon, Jr. and Myrna D. Brieker, Assistant City Attorneys, for appellee.
Before COPE, GERSTEN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this premises liability case, plaintiffs deposition testimony about the location of her fall was confusing, argumentative, and non-specific. What can be gleaned is that plaintiff denied being in the unpaved area between lanes of the parking lot or stepping on or between the concrete car "bumpers." The remaining area is paved. The photograph of the paved surface does not reveal a recess or gap which would correspond to the plaintiffs description of the place where she fell. The summary judgment is therefore affirmed.