Hardesty v. Slice of Harlem, II, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hardesty v. Slice of Harlem, II, LLC

79 A.D.3d 472, 911 N.Y.S.2d 624

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered February 17, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the chair in which plaintiff was sitting collapsed causing him to hit his head against the wall, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion properly found that plaintiff failed to present triable issues of fact for application of the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The record is devoid of evidence that defendant’s control of the chair, located in a restaurant open to the public where innumerable patrons had access to the chair, was sufficiently exclusive “to fairly rule out the chance that the defect . . . was caused by some agency other than defendant’s negligence” (Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 228 [1986]; see Loiacono v Stuyvesant Bagels, Inc., 29 AD3d 537 [2006]; Rivera-Emerling v M. Fortunoff of Westbury Corp., 281 AD2d 215, 217 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered February 17, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the chair in which plaintiff was sitting collapsed causing him to hit his head against the wall, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion properly found that plaintiff failed to present triable issues of fact for application of the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The record is devoid of evidence that defendant’s control of the chair, located in a restaurant open to the public where innumerable patrons had access to the chair, was sufficiently exclusive “to fairly rule out the chance that the defect . . . was caused by some agency other than defendant’s negligence” (Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 228 [1986]; see Loiacono v Stuyvesant Bagels, Inc., 29 AD3d 537 [2006]; Rivera-Emerling v M. Fortunoff of Westbury Corp., 281 AD2d 215, 217 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Hardesty v. Slice of Harlem, II, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 472, 911 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 472 (Hardesty v. Slice of Harlem, II, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related