Fajardo v. Schapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fajardo v. Schapiro

120 A.D.3d 468, 990 N.Y.S.2d 269

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

DecidedAugust 6, 2014

Docket2013-03437

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 468 (Fajardo v. Schapiro) 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

Fajardo v. Schapiro, 120 A.D.3d 468, 990 N.Y.S.2d 269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated February 8, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped on construction debris, lost his balance, and fell on the landing at the top of an interior staircase *469 connecting the basement to the first floor of a premises owned by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the staircase was not equipped with any handrails, and when he reached out as he began to fall, there was nothing to grab. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition and that the subject staircase was not in violation of any applicable statute, code, or regulation. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]), and that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 was not applicable to the subject staircase, since the staircase merely connected the basement to the first floor and did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 324 [2010]; Kociecki v EOP-Midtown Props., LLC, 66 AD3d 967, 968 [2009]; Schwartz v Hersh, 50 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2008]; Dooley v Vornado Realty Trust, 39 AD3d 460 [2007]; Mansfield v Dolcemascolo, 34 AD3d 763, 764 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Hall, J.E, Roman, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated February 8, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped on construction debris, lost his balance, and fell on the landing at the top of an interior staircase *469 connecting the basement to the first floor of a premises owned by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the staircase was not equipped with any handrails, and when he reached out as he began to fall, there was nothing to grab. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition and that the subject staircase was not in violation of any applicable statute, code, or regulation. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]), and that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 was not applicable to the subject staircase, since the staircase merely connected the basement to the first floor and did not serve as a required exit from the building (see Administrative Code §§ 27-232, 27-375; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 324 [2010]; Kociecki v EOP-Midtown Props., LLC, 66 AD3d 967, 968 [2009]; Schwartz v Hersh, 50 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2008]; Dooley v Vornado Realty Trust, 39 AD3d 460 [2007]; Mansfield v Dolcemascolo, 34 AD3d 763, 764 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Hall, J.E, Roman, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 468, 990 N.Y.S.2d 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fajardo-v-schapiro-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack