Hunter v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunter v. New York City Housing Authority

137 A.D.3d 717, 27 N.Y.S.3d 387

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2016

Docket696 109154/11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 717 (Hunter 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

Hunter v. New York City Housing Authority, 137 A.D.3d 717, 27 N.Y.S.3d 387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*718 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 29, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when her sock became caught on a broken tile, causing her to fall. Defendant presented evidence that the elevation differential between the broken tile on which plaintiff’s sock was caught and the floor beneath was one tenth of an inch. Defendant also submitted an expert affidavit showing that the condition of the floor did not violate any code, was not defectively designed, constructed or maintained, and did not present a tripping hazard (see Forrester v Riverbay Corp., 135 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the size of the defect itself, whether “its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnified] the dangers it pose[d], so that it unreasonably imperil[ed] the safety of [plaintiff],” (Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 78 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]), or “whether the defect was difficult for [plaintiff] to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” (id. at 80).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*718 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 29, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when her sock became caught on a broken tile, causing her to fall. Defendant presented evidence that the elevation differential between the broken tile on which plaintiff’s sock was caught and the floor beneath was one tenth of an inch. Defendant also submitted an expert affidavit showing that the condition of the floor did not violate any code, was not defectively designed, constructed or maintained, and did not present a tripping hazard (see Forrester v Riverbay Corp., 135 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the size of the defect itself, whether “its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnified] the dangers it pose[d], so that it unreasonably imperil[ed] the safety of [plaintiff],” (Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 78 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]), or “whether the defect was difficult for [plaintiff] to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” (id. at 80).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 717, 27 N.Y.S.3d 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack