McFadden v. New Castle Hotel, LLC

101 A.D.3d 1767, 955 N.Y.2d 920
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1767 (McFadden v. New Castle Hotel, LLC) 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
McFadden v. New Castle Hotel, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 1767, 955 N.Y.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[1768]*1768Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Elliott C. McFadden (plaintiff) when he tripped and fell in defendant’s hotel and broke his shoulder. Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall; any defect was trivial and nonactionable; and the absence of a defect in defendant’s floor and floor drain eliminated any duty of inspection. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established as a matter of law that the cause of the fall was speculative (see Gafter v Buffalo Med. Group, P.C., 85 AD3d 1605, 1606 [2011]), we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact concerning the cause of the fall by submitting plaintiffs deposition testimony and the accident and incident reports setting forth that plaintiff fell because a grate over a floor drain was lower than the floor. We further conclude on the record before us that “defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the alleged defect ‘was too trivial to constitute a dangerous or defective condition’ ” (Cuebas v Buffalo Motor Lodge/Best Value Inn, 55 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2008]; see generally Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977-978 [1997]; Gafter, 85 AD3d at 1605-1606). Indeed, one of defendant’s employees acknowledged the presence of a lip on the drain. Finally, inasmuch as there is an issue of fact concerning the existence of a defect, we do not reach defendant’s contention that the absence of a defect eliminated any duty of inspection. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey and Valentino, JJ.

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

Related

LANGGOOD, GERALD v. CARROLS, LLC
148 A.D.3d 1734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Habecker v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.
928 F. Supp. 2d 648 (E.D. New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 1767, 955 N.Y.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-new-castle-hotel-llc-nyappdiv-2012.