Ferington v. Dudkowski

49 A.D.3d 1267, 856 N.Y.2d 348
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1267 (Ferington v. Dudkowski) 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
Ferington v. Dudkowski, 49 A.D.3d 1267, 856 N.Y.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Rosemary Ferington (plaintiff) when she fell while descending the front stairs leading to defendant’s home. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the stairs. Defendant met his burden with respect to actual notice “[b]y showing that [he] did not receive any complaints about the area prior to plaintiffs fall” (Quinn v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc., 15 AD3d 857, 857 [2005]; see Gallagher v TDS Telecom, 294 AD2d 860 [2002]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendant also met his burden with respect to constructive notice by establishing that the defective condition was not “visible and apparent and [did not] exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant ] ... to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable is[1268]*1268sue of fact. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which she stated that she fell on the “middle” step, and they submitted the affidavit of an architect who stated that the middle step was one third of an inch out of level. Such a minor defect would not be “visible and apparent” upon a reasonable inspection (Quinn, 15 AD3d at 858; see also Lal v Ching Po Ng, 33 AD3d 668 [2006]). We note in any event that the affidavit of plaintiffs expert was based on his examination of the stairs more than 2V2 years after the accident and thus is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the condition of the stairs at the time of plaintiffs fall (see generally Ciccarelli v Cotira, Inc., 24 AD3d 1276 [2005]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

Bush v. Independent Food Equip., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
SLATTERY, JOSEPH W. v. TOPS MARKETS, LLC
147 A.D.3d 1504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
O'BRYAN, CHESLEY A. v. TONAWANDA HOUSING AUTHORITY
140 A.D.3d 1702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Steiger v. LPCiminelli, Inc.
104 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
COSTANZO, JOSEPH v. v. WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN ASSN OF JAMESTOWN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Costanzo v. Woman's Christian Ass'n of Jamestown
92 A.D.3d 1256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Derosia v. Gasbarre & Szatkowski Ass'n
66 A.D.3d 1423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hahn v. Wilhelm
54 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 1267, 856 N.Y.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferington-v-dudkowski-nyappdiv-2008.