Chavis v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chavis v. New York City Housing Authority

160 A.D.2d 277, 553 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018

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

DecidedApril 10, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 277 (Chavis 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

Chavis v. New York City Housing Authority, 160 A.D.2d 277, 553 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about November 15, 1988, granting defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff Rose Chavis sustained injuries when the hopper of an incinerator chute came out of the wall, as she was disposing of garbage, and struck her. Plaintiffs conceded the absence of actual notice and relied upon the testimony of a neighbor that the hopper had become dislodged on one side, but never fell out completely, 6 or 12 times in the year prior to plaintiff’s accident as a basis for finding constructive notice.

Such evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute constructive notice. The defect must be visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 [278]*278NY2d 836, 837). The evidence relied upon by plaintiffs established the sporadic occurrence of a defect different from that which caused plaintiffs injuries. The court below correctly observed that evidence of such a distinct condition occurring so infrequently was an insufficient basis for presenting the issue of constructive notice to the jury. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about November 15, 1988, granting defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff Rose Chavis sustained injuries when the hopper of an incinerator chute came out of the wall, as she was disposing of garbage, and struck her. Plaintiffs conceded the absence of actual notice and relied upon the testimony of a neighbor that the hopper had become dislodged on one side, but never fell out completely, 6 or 12 times in the year prior to plaintiff’s accident as a basis for finding constructive notice.

Such evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute constructive notice. The defect must be visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 [278]*278NY2d 836, 837). The evidence relied upon by plaintiffs established the sporadic occurrence of a defect different from that which caused plaintiffs injuries. The court below correctly observed that evidence of such a distinct condition occurring so infrequently was an insufficient basis for presenting the issue of constructive notice to the jury. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 277, 553 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavis-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack