MCKNIGHT, DENISE F. v. COPPOLA, GARY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MCKNIGHT, DENISE F. v. COPPOLA, GARY

113 A.D.3d 1087, 978 N.Y.2d 562

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2014

DocketCA 13-00822

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 1087 (MCKNIGHT, DENISE F. v. COPPOLA, GARY) 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

MCKNIGHT, DENISE F. v. COPPOLA, GARY, 113 A.D.3d 1087, 978 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down the basement stairway at defendant’s residence. The accident occurred when plaintiff walked down an unlit hallway, intending to open the door to the first floor bathroom, and instead opened the door to the basement. Plaintiff moved her hand along the wall inside the basement doorway in search of a light switch, took a step and fell down the stairs. She alleges that defendant was negligent in, inter alia, failing to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition and failing to warn her of the danger posed by the basement door, which was next to the bathroom door and identical in appearance to it.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordinarily the issue whether a danger is open and obvious is for the trier of fact (see Tagle v Jakob, 97 NY2d 165, 169 [2001]; Sniatecki v Violet Realty, Inc., 98 AD3d 1316, 1319 [2012]), and defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether the danger posed by the proximity and appearance of the bathroom and basement doors was open and obvious (cf. Koval v Markley, 93 AD3d 1171, *1088 1171-1172 [2012]; see generally Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686, 690 [1977]; Christianson v Breen, 288 NY 435, 437-438 [1942]; Pollack v Klein, 39 AD3d 730, 730-731 [2007]). In addition, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he discharged his “ ‘broader duty’ ” to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition (Juoniene v H.R.H. Constr. Corp., 6 AD3d 199, 201 [2004]; see generally Cohen v Shopwell, Inc., 309 AD2d 560, 561-562 [2003]), or that plaintiffs conduct was the sole proximate cause of her fall (see Sniatecki, 98 AD3d at 1319; Mooney v Petro, Inc., 51 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down the basement stairway at defendant’s residence. The accident occurred when plaintiff walked down an unlit hallway, intending to open the door to the first floor bathroom, and instead opened the door to the basement. Plaintiff moved her hand along the wall inside the basement doorway in search of a light switch, took a step and fell down the stairs. She alleges that defendant was negligent in, inter alia, failing to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition and failing to warn her of the danger posed by the basement door, which was next to the bathroom door and identical in appearance to it.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordinarily the issue whether a danger is open and obvious is for the trier of fact (see Tagle v Jakob, 97 NY2d 165, 169 [2001]; Sniatecki v Violet Realty, Inc., 98 AD3d 1316, 1319 [2012]), and defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether the danger posed by the proximity and appearance of the bathroom and basement doors was open and obvious (cf. Koval v Markley, 93 AD3d 1171, *1088 1171-1172 [2012]; see generally Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686, 690 [1977]; Christianson v Breen, 288 NY 435, 437-438 [1942]; Pollack v Klein, 39 AD3d 730, 730-731 [2007]). In addition, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he discharged his “ ‘broader duty’ ” to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition (Juoniene v H.R.H. Constr. Corp., 6 AD3d 199, 201 [2004]; see generally Cohen v Shopwell, Inc., 309 AD2d 560, 561-562 [2003]), or that plaintiffs conduct was the sole proximate cause of her fall (see Sniatecki, 98 AD3d at 1319; Mooney v Petro, Inc., 51 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 1087, 978 N.Y.2d 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-denise-f-v-coppola-gary-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack