Kelley Kronenberg Partner Jesse Siegel secured dismissal for our property owner client in a premises liability action in New York County Supreme Court after proving the client had zero connection to the accident location—a classic case of mistaken identity. 

Plaintiff filed suit alleging serious injuries from a fall on a defective sidewalk at 197 Madison Avenue in Manhattan. The complaint named multiple defendants including the City of New York and Jesse’s client—a property holding company. Plaintiff broadly alleged negligence against all defendants. 

One problem: Jesse’s client never owned, managed, operated, or controlled the premises where plaintiff fell. The client owned 197 Madison Street—an entirely different property located approximately four miles away. Both properties happened to have vape shops in their buildings, creating confusion that led plaintiff’s counsel to sue the wrong entity. 

Jesse immediately recognized the mistaken identity issue and assembled comprehensive documentary evidence. He obtained a deed of sale proving our client owned 197 Madison Street, not 197 Madison Avenue. He also discovered that plaintiff’s own counsel had filed a separate subsequent lawsuit for the same accident at the same location—this time naming the correct owner. 

Most tellingly, Jesse obtained a sworn affidavit from the client confirming the company had never been an owner, tenant, party to any lease, or had any affiliation whatsoever with the accident premises. The affidavit methodically established that on September 15, 2023—the date of the accident—the client owned only the Madison Street property. 

Between June and September 2025, Jesse made repeated good-faith requests to plaintiff’s counsel to voluntarily discontinue the meritless claim. Despite the overwhelming evidence, plaintiff’s counsel refused. 

As a result of this refusal, Jesse subsequently filed a motion to dismiss under CPLR § 3211(a)(7). His memorandum of law established the fundamental principle: liability for conditions on property requires ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property. Without one of these factors, no duty exists as a matter of law. Additionally, as Jesse’s client had no association whatsoever with the premises where Plaintiff fell, there could be no reasonable argument that the client caused or created the condition which resulted in Plaintiff’s injury. 

Jesse’s motion demonstrated that our client met none of the criteria for liability. The documentary evidence—the deed, the separate lawsuit naming the proper owner, and the sworn affidavit—conclusively established that the client had no connection to the accident location. 

As the return date for the motion approached, reality set in for plaintiff’s counsel. Faced with uncontroverted documentary proof, opposing counsel finally agreed to discontinue the case against Jesse’s client. The lone appearing co-defendant also agreed to the discontinuance. 

The client was dismissed from the case entirely, avoiding the time and expense of discovery, depositions, expert retention, and potential trial. More importantly, the client avoided any exposure from an accident at a property it never owned or controlled. 

This case illustrates why thorough investigation matters at the outset of premises liability cases. Similar property names, especially in dense urban areas with numbered streets and avenues, can create confusion leading to improper defendants being named. For property owners wrongly sued, documentary evidence proving lack of ownership, possession, or control provides an ironclad defense. 

The case also demonstrates that when opposing counsel refuses reasonable discontinuance requests despite clear evidence, strategic motion practice forces resolution. Well-supported motions to dismiss with sworn affidavits and documentary proof leave plaintiffs with no viable path forward, typically resulting in voluntary discontinuances before the return date. 

For defendants facing mistaken identity claims, this case provides a roadmap: gather comprehensive proof of the mistake, make good-faith discontinuance requests, and when those fail, file a motion to dismiss with documentation that makes the plaintiff’s error undeniable.

Stay up to date on the latest developments in general liability and third-party insurance. Click here to read the latest issue of our newsletter, “In the Know: General Liability Edition.”   

Learn more about Kelley Kronenberg’s General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division. Click here.