Court Opinion

ID: 9880757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 16:07:38.531753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:30.938239
License: Public Domain

Mojica v Church of the Immaculate Conception (2023 NY Slip Op 04823)

Mojica v Church of the Immaculate Conception

2023 NY Slip Op 04823

Decided on September 28, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: September 28, 2023

Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ. 

Index No. 154451/21 Appeal No. 660 Case No. 2022-05514 

[*1]Rafaeljna Mojica, Plaintiff-Respondent,
vChurch of the Immaculate Conception, Defendant-Appellant, 404 Condo, LLC., et al., Defendants.

Chesney, Nicholas & Brown, LLP, Syosset (Stephen V. Morello of counsel), for appellant.
Friedman & Simon, LLP, Jericho (John G. Papadopoulos of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Church of the Immaculate Conception's motion to strike plaintiff's errata sheet, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This action for personal injuries arose when plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a sidewalk in front of or adjacent to where two properties meet at 414 East 14th Street and 404 East 14th Street. At the time of the accident, 414 East 14th Street was owned by defendant Church and 404 East 14th Street was owned and operated by defendants BDC Restaurants, LLC. d/b/a McDonald's and McDonald's Corporation and 404 Condo, LLC.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to strike plaintiff's errata sheet because plaintiff provided an adequate reason for the substantive changes she sought to make (CPLR 3116 [a]; see Cillo v Resjefal Corp., 295 AD2d 257 [1st Dept 2002]). Plaintiff's corrections raise issues of credibility that should be left for trial (see Clindinin v New York City Hous. Auth., 117 AD3d 628, 629 [1st Dept 2014]; Marcano v Calvary Hosp., Inc., 13 AD3d 109, 111 [1st Dept 2004]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: September 28, 2023