Pellicane v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 569, 644 N.Y.2d 769, 644 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 569 (Pellicane v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, 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
Pellicane v. Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 569, 644 N.Y.2d 769, 644 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The plaintiff was a member of the defendant Theta Upsilon Zeta of Lambda Chi Alpha (hereinafter the local chapter), the local chapter of the codefendant Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. (hereinafter the national fraternity). The plaintiff was injured when he stepped on a nail protruding from a floor board that had been placed on a pile of debris in the backyard of the fraternity house by a member of the local chapter during renovation of the kitchen floor. The renovation was [570]*570performed solely by members of the local chapter. The plaintiff commenced this action against the national fraternity and local chapter to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when he stepped on the nail.

On a motion for summary judgment, once the defendant has made a prima facie showing that the cause of action has no merit, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to lay bare whatever evidence it may have to show that issues of fact exist (see, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 968). The plaintiffs contention that the national fraternity was liable for the negligence of the member of the local chapter under the theories of agency and respondeat superior is unpreserved for appellate review as such arguments were not raised before the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Bieder, 212 AD2d 693, 694; Miller Org. v Vasap Constr. Corp., 184 AD2d 763, 764).

The cause of action asserted against the local chapter was also properly dismissed as there was no duty to warn the plaintiff against the obvious potential danger presented by the pile of debris from the renovation project (see, Jackson v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 214 AD2d 650; Wilhouski v Canon U.S.A., 212 AD2d 525). The plaintiff participated in and supervised the renovation project and was fully aware of the existence of the pile of debris in the backyard.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bader v. River Edge at Hastings Owners Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 1588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Gonzalez v. Diaz
292 A.D.2d 169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Alvia v. Teman Electrical Contracting, Inc.
287 A.D.2d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community Blue
286 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Farmer v. Central Elevator, Inc.
255 A.D.2d 289 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Wozniak v. Filler
245 A.D.2d 444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Repecki v. Home Depot USA
942 F. Supp. 126 (E.D. New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 569, 644 N.Y.2d 769, 644 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pellicane-v-lambda-chi-alpha-fraternity-inc-nyappdiv-1996.