Buonchristiano v. Fordham University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buonchristiano v. Fordham University

2017 NY Slip Op 586, 146 A.D.3d 711, 46 N.Y.S.3d 76

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

Docket2915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 586 (Buonchristiano v. Fordham University) 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

Buonchristiano v. Fordham University, 2017 NY Slip Op 586, 146 A.D.3d 711, 46 N.Y.S.3d 76 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 30, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a step on a walkway on defendant’s premises while crossing the campus during her lunch break. Assuming that defendant established prima facie that the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous

*712 (see Philips v Paco Lafayette LLC, 106 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2013]), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the condition was open and obvious by demonstrating through an expert’s affidavit and photographs that the color and position of the step created optical confusion, i.e., “the illusion of a flat surface, visually obscuring [the] step[ ]” (Saretsky v 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 AD3d 89, 92 n [1st Dept 2011]; and see Thornhill v Toys “R” Us NYTEX, 183 AD2d 1071, 1073 [3d Dept 1992]). Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that she was looking around at trees and flowers as she walked and that the step was invisible, was not inconsistent with her affidavit, in which she explained that she was also looking ahead as she walked down the path, and did not see the step (see Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207, 211 [1st Dept 1988]; Saretsky, 85 AD3d at 92).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 30, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a step on a walkway on defendant’s premises while crossing the campus during her lunch break. Assuming that defendant established prima facie that the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous

*712 (see Philips v Paco Lafayette LLC, 106 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2013]), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the condition was open and obvious by demonstrating through an expert’s affidavit and photographs that the color and position of the step created optical confusion, i.e., “the illusion of a flat surface, visually obscuring [the] step[ ]” (Saretsky v 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 AD3d 89, 92 n [1st Dept 2011]; and see Thornhill v Toys “R” Us NYTEX, 183 AD2d 1071, 1073 [3d Dept 1992]). Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that she was looking around at trees and flowers as she walked and that the step was invisible, was not inconsistent with her affidavit, in which she explained that she was also looking ahead as she walked down the path, and did not see the step (see Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207, 211 [1st Dept 1988]; Saretsky, 85 AD3d at 92).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 586, 146 A.D.3d 711, 46 N.Y.S.3d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buonchristiano-v-fordham-university-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack