Hunter v. Riverview Towers, Inc.

5 A.D.3d 249, 773 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 249 (Hunter v. Riverview Towers, Inc.) 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. Riverview Towers, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 249, 773 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 19, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a resident of defendant’s building, alleges that he was injured when struck by a stairwell door leading to the building’s lobby that some children in the stairwell knocked open, and that the force and speed with which the door swung open indicated that defendant failed properly to adjust or otherwise maintain it. Defendant’s moving papers established that it conducted weekly safety inspections of the building that included the door’s closing mechanism, that it never received any complaints about the door, and that plaintiff had walked to his mailbox many times before without incident. In addition, defendant submitted the report of an expert engineer that the door conformed to the applicable Building Code and was properly adjusted. This was sufficient to show, prima facie, that the door was not defective, and that, even if it were, defendant had no knowledge of the defect, either actual or constructive, for a sufficient time prior to the accident to correct it (see Aquila v Nathan’s Famous, 284 AD2d 287, 287-288 [2001], citing Maldonado v Su Jong Lee, 278 AD2d 206 [2000]; Pacht v Interna[250]*250tional Bus. Machs., 228 AD2d 422 [1996]). The burden therefore shifted to plaintiff to adduce evidence of negligence (see Pacht at 422). This plaintiff failed to do. As the motion court stated, that the door was defective, or improperly maintained, cannot be inferred merely from the fact that it could be opened fast enough, or hard enough, to knock plaintiff down. Such inference, absent any other evidence of a defect, is too speculative to impose liability (see Aquila, 284 AD2d at 288). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Menear v. Kwik Fill
2019 NY Slip Op 5845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Jones v. Underhill Realty, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lugo v. Belmont Blvd. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
SMITH, TERRY v. SZPILEWSKI, EUGENE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Smith v. Szpilewski
139 A.D.3d 1342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Davila v. City of New York
95 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Hyatt v. Price Chopper Operating Co.
90 A.D.3d 1218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Siciliano v. Henry Modell & Co.
85 A.D.3d 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Guterman v. Board of Education
80 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Fontana v. R.H.C. Development, LLC
69 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
DeCarlo v. Village of Dobbs Ferry
36 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lezama v. 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC
16 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 249, 773 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-riverview-towers-inc-nyappdiv-2004.