Dennis v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dennis v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co.

192 A.D.2d 1018, 597 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4437

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

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1018 (Dennis v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co.) 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

Dennis v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co., 192 A.D.2d 1018, 597 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered October 31, 1991 in Dutchess County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Louis Dennis, Jr. (hereinafter plaintiff) when he fell while walking down a [1019]*1019green marble spiral staircase between the first and second floors of Poughkeepsie Galleria Mall (hereinafter the mall) in the Town of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County. The mall is owned, operated and maintained by defendants. Defendants appeal from an order of Supreme Court which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of proof of negligence. The motion was made after joinder of issue and the parties had conducted full discovery including examinations before trial. Plaintiff’s wife is also a party seeking damages in her derivative cause of action.

In denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court concluded "that the proof, viewed in the light most favorable to this plaintiff, is sufficient to create a question of fact” and that the evidence "provides facts and conditions from which the negligence of these defendants may be reasonably inferred”. Supreme Court also opined that "[i]t would not be unreasonable for a trier of fact to infer that the design and construction of the stairway in question was not in accordance with approved and accepted design and engineering standards”. We agree.

Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial as to how his fall occurred, saying "I was stepping down and it was like there was no step there. My (left) foot just didn’t reach anything, and I just started going forward. I couldn’t stop myself, as I described it, as I slipped.” There was other testimony describing prior falls on the staircase, the staircase’s composition and its deceptive appearance, including the affidavits of plaintiffs’ expert witness. The defects were asserted to be the varying widths of the stair treads, the make up, composition, deceptive appearance and alignment of the stairs and stairway, all of which were alleged to be in violation of sound and accepted design, engineering and construction practice. Thus, there was sufficient evidence presented to warrant a jury trial on the issues (see, Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743; Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth., 136 AD2d 196, 198; see also, Burlingame v Hefti, 181 AD2d 986) and the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sacks v Weiss, 122 AD2d 937, 938, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 997).

Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered October 31, 1991 in Dutchess County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Louis Dennis, Jr. (hereinafter plaintiff) when he fell while walking down a [1019]*1019green marble spiral staircase between the first and second floors of Poughkeepsie Galleria Mall (hereinafter the mall) in the Town of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County. The mall is owned, operated and maintained by defendants. Defendants appeal from an order of Supreme Court which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of proof of negligence. The motion was made after joinder of issue and the parties had conducted full discovery including examinations before trial. Plaintiff’s wife is also a party seeking damages in her derivative cause of action.

In denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court concluded "that the proof, viewed in the light most favorable to this plaintiff, is sufficient to create a question of fact” and that the evidence "provides facts and conditions from which the negligence of these defendants may be reasonably inferred”. Supreme Court also opined that "[i]t would not be unreasonable for a trier of fact to infer that the design and construction of the stairway in question was not in accordance with approved and accepted design and engineering standards”. We agree.

Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial as to how his fall occurred, saying "I was stepping down and it was like there was no step there. My (left) foot just didn’t reach anything, and I just started going forward. I couldn’t stop myself, as I described it, as I slipped.” There was other testimony describing prior falls on the staircase, the staircase’s composition and its deceptive appearance, including the affidavits of plaintiffs’ expert witness. The defects were asserted to be the varying widths of the stair treads, the make up, composition, deceptive appearance and alignment of the stairs and stairway, all of which were alleged to be in violation of sound and accepted design, engineering and construction practice. Thus, there was sufficient evidence presented to warrant a jury trial on the issues (see, Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743; Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth., 136 AD2d 196, 198; see also, Burlingame v Hefti, 181 AD2d 986) and the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sacks v Weiss, 122 AD2d 937, 938, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 997).

Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1018, 597 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-poughkeepsie-galleria-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack