Lovetere v. Meadowlands Sports Complex

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovetere v. Meadowlands Sports Complex

2016 NY Slip Op 6774, 143 A.D.3d 539, 39 N.Y.S.3d 146

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

Docket1928 153068/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6774 (Lovetere v. Meadowlands Sports Complex) 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

Lovetere v. Meadowlands Sports Complex, 2016 NY Slip Op 6774, 143 A.D.3d 539, 39 N.Y.S.3d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Airthur F. Engoron, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority and New Meadowlands Racetrack, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony, expert opinion, and photographic evidence showing that the alleged hazardous defect in the ceramic floor tile (a “spall”) was physically insignificant and trivial. The depth of the defect in a grouted area of the tiled floor measured only three-sixteenths of an inch, as well as seven-eighths of an inch wide and four inches *540 in length. Moreover, the spall’s edges, as compared to the immediate surrounding surface areas, were not dangerously irregular. Plaintiff acknowledged that the lighting enabled her to see the floor area in the six-foot-wide corridor while she walked with family members, and that the alleged defect was not noticeable despite the grouting having a darker color than the surrounding tile. There was also evidence indicating no prior accidents or complaints were reported that involved the subject tiled area of the well-traveled corridor.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The eyewitness testimony regarding how the heel of her shoe had become stuck in the floor and remained there, together with photographic evidence, failed to raise an issue as to whether the subject spall represented an unreasonably dangerous hazard under all of the circumstances presented (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66 [2015]; Myles v Spring Val. Marketplace, LLC, 141 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2016]; Hunter v New York City Hous. Auth., 137 AD3d 717 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Airthur F. Engoron, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority and New Meadowlands Racetrack, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony, expert opinion, and photographic evidence showing that the alleged hazardous defect in the ceramic floor tile (a “spall”) was physically insignificant and trivial. The depth of the defect in a grouted area of the tiled floor measured only three-sixteenths of an inch, as well as seven-eighths of an inch wide and four inches *540 in length. Moreover, the spall’s edges, as compared to the immediate surrounding surface areas, were not dangerously irregular. Plaintiff acknowledged that the lighting enabled her to see the floor area in the six-foot-wide corridor while she walked with family members, and that the alleged defect was not noticeable despite the grouting having a darker color than the surrounding tile. There was also evidence indicating no prior accidents or complaints were reported that involved the subject tiled area of the well-traveled corridor.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The eyewitness testimony regarding how the heel of her shoe had become stuck in the floor and remained there, together with photographic evidence, failed to raise an issue as to whether the subject spall represented an unreasonably dangerous hazard under all of the circumstances presented (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66 [2015]; Myles v Spring Val. Marketplace, LLC, 141 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2016]; Hunter v New York City Hous. Auth., 137 AD3d 717 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6774, 143 A.D.3d 539, 39 N.Y.S.3d 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovetere-v-meadowlands-sports-complex-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack