Cartagena v. Access Staffing, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cartagena v. Access Staffing, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 5025, 151 A.D.3d 580, 57 N.Y.S.3d 143

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

DecidedJune 20, 2017

Docket4324

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5025 (Cartagena v. Access Staffing, LLC) 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

Cartagena v. Access Staffing, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 5025, 151 A.D.3d 580, 57 N.Y.S.3d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered October 12, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff Monique Cartagena alleges that while in the course of her employment, she was walking in a hallway of the Christo *581 pher School, when she slipped and fell on water that was on the floor after it had been recently mopped by nonparty Winston Fofana, who was employed by defendant. Plaintiff’s affidavit presents a triable issue of fact as to whether a special employee relationship existed between the school and Fofana. Plaintiff set forth that no one from the school supervised Fofana’s work or directed his daily schedule, and that the school did not provide him with equipment or a uniform (see Holmes v Business Relocation Servs., Inc., 117 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2014], affd 25 NY3d 955 [2015]; compare Berhe v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 146 AD3d 697 [1st Dept 2017]).

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s affidavit, as it did not contradict her deposition testimony (see e.g. Alvia v Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., 56 AD3d 311 [1st Dept 2008]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit provide a nonspeculative basis for her account of the accident and sufficiently demonstrates a nexus between the hazardous condition and the circumstances of her fall, because she testified that immediately after she fell she noticed that the floor was wet and that there was a janitor’s cart with wet floor signs attached to it near the accident location (see Garcia v 1265 Morrison LLC, 122 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered October 12, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff Monique Cartagena alleges that while in the course of her employment, she was walking in a hallway of the Christo *581 pher School, when she slipped and fell on water that was on the floor after it had been recently mopped by nonparty Winston Fofana, who was employed by defendant. Plaintiff’s affidavit presents a triable issue of fact as to whether a special employee relationship existed between the school and Fofana. Plaintiff set forth that no one from the school supervised Fofana’s work or directed his daily schedule, and that the school did not provide him with equipment or a uniform (see Holmes v Business Relocation Servs., Inc., 117 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2014], affd 25 NY3d 955 [2015]; compare Berhe v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 146 AD3d 697 [1st Dept 2017]).

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s affidavit, as it did not contradict her deposition testimony (see e.g. Alvia v Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., 56 AD3d 311 [1st Dept 2008]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit provide a nonspeculative basis for her account of the accident and sufficiently demonstrates a nexus between the hazardous condition and the circumstances of her fall, because she testified that immediately after she fell she noticed that the floor was wet and that there was a janitor’s cart with wet floor signs attached to it near the accident location (see Garcia v 1265 Morrison LLC, 122 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5025, 151 A.D.3d 580, 57 N.Y.S.3d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cartagena-v-access-staffing-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack