Miller v. Coye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Coye

254 A.D.2d 800, 678 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 800 (Miller v. Coye) 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

Miller v. Coye, 254 A.D.2d 800, 678 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established, through the affidavit of an expert, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff failed to come forward with evidentiary facts establishing a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s expert does not satisfy that burden. Plaintiffs expert opined that the “railing” in the interior screened porch from which plaintiffs infant daughter fell violated two sections of the New York State Building Code. The sections relied on by the expert, however, do not apply to interior porches and are otherwise inapposite. The expert also opined that defendants violated a reasonable standard of care by using staples to attach the screen to the window frame. The owner of a building is not liable where an infant falls through a screen, “because the purpose of a window screen is not to prevent people from falling out the window” (Vazquez v City of New York, 192 AD2d 522, 524, lv denied 82 NY2d 661). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established, through the affidavit of an expert, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff failed to come forward with evidentiary facts establishing a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s expert does not satisfy that burden. Plaintiffs expert opined that the “railing” in the interior screened porch from which plaintiffs infant daughter fell violated two sections of the New York State Building Code. The sections relied on by the expert, however, do not apply to interior porches and are otherwise inapposite. The expert also opined that defendants violated a reasonable standard of care by using staples to attach the screen to the window frame. The owner of a building is not liable where an infant falls through a screen, “because the purpose of a window screen is not to prevent people from falling out the window” (Vazquez v City of New York, 192 AD2d 522, 524, lv denied 82 NY2d 661). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 800, 678 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-coye-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack