Bonds v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonds v. New York City Housing Authority

299 A.D.2d 183, 750 N.Y.S.2d 14, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10716

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 183 (Bonds v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonds v. New York City Housing Authority, 299 A.D.2d 183, 750 N.Y.S.2d 14, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered August 21, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $442,900, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence, fairly considered (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134), enabled the jury to conclude that defendant had been negligent, both in failing to mop the floor upon which plaintiff slipped and in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent another overflow of a nearby slop sink. The causal connection between this negligence and plaintiffs harm was amply made out by evidence supporting the inference that the slippery substance upon which plaintiff slipped came from [184]*184the slop sink, which photographs entered in evidence showed to have been covered in grime (see Johnson v New York City Tr. Auth., 129 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 605). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the expert testimony of Robert Lichtenberger, a licensed plumbing contractor, was properly received. Lichtenberger’s testimony was based on deposition testimony and photographs that had been entered in evidence, its consideration by the jury was appropriately limited by the trial court, and Lichtenberger was subject to cross-examination.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining points and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered August 21, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $442,900, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence, fairly considered (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134), enabled the jury to conclude that defendant had been negligent, both in failing to mop the floor upon which plaintiff slipped and in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent another overflow of a nearby slop sink. The causal connection between this negligence and plaintiffs harm was amply made out by evidence supporting the inference that the slippery substance upon which plaintiff slipped came from [184]*184the slop sink, which photographs entered in evidence showed to have been covered in grime (see Johnson v New York City Tr. Auth., 129 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 605). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the expert testimony of Robert Lichtenberger, a licensed plumbing contractor, was properly received. Lichtenberger’s testimony was based on deposition testimony and photographs that had been entered in evidence, its consideration by the jury was appropriately limited by the trial court, and Lichtenberger was subject to cross-examination.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining points and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 183, 750 N.Y.S.2d 14, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonds-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack