Pepic v. Joco Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pepic v. Joco Realty, Inc.

216 A.D.2d 95, 628 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378

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

DecidedJune 15, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 95 (Pepic v. Joco Realty, 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

Pepic v. Joco Realty, Inc., 216 A.D.2d 95, 628 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered November 30, 1994, which granted defendants’ and third-party defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, employed as a cleaning person by third-party defendant, was cleaning a picture hanging on the wall when she tripped over a planter that had been placed nearby. She commenced this action against the owners of the building, the lessor of the premises that she had been assigned to clean and the design company that was responsible for the placement, inspec[96]*96tion and maintenance of the plants, alleging that defendants had, by creating a tight space between the planter and the wall, negligently positioned the planter in a location where it interfered with the safe performance of plaintiffs duties, and that her employer did not adequately train her or supply the proper tools. The complaint was properly dismissed upon the finding that the planter was in plain view and did not constitute a hazardous condition presenting a foreseeable danger (Hessner v Laporte, 171 AD2d 999, 1000). Indeed, plaintiff admits that she had previously cleaned the picture three or four times without incident. "[QJuestions of foreseeability are for the court to determine as a matter of law when but a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” (supra, at 999), and "[t]here is no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable” (Smith v Curtis Lbr. Co., 183 AD2d 1018, 1019). This is not "the usual slip and fall situation where a plaintiff is caught by surprise when confronted by a dangerous condition which results in a fall and injury” (supra, at 1019). Defendants were not the insurers of plaintiff’s safety. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered November 30, 1994, which granted defendants’ and third-party defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, employed as a cleaning person by third-party defendant, was cleaning a picture hanging on the wall when she tripped over a planter that had been placed nearby. She commenced this action against the owners of the building, the lessor of the premises that she had been assigned to clean and the design company that was responsible for the placement, inspec[96]*96tion and maintenance of the plants, alleging that defendants had, by creating a tight space between the planter and the wall, negligently positioned the planter in a location where it interfered with the safe performance of plaintiffs duties, and that her employer did not adequately train her or supply the proper tools. The complaint was properly dismissed upon the finding that the planter was in plain view and did not constitute a hazardous condition presenting a foreseeable danger (Hessner v Laporte, 171 AD2d 999, 1000). Indeed, plaintiff admits that she had previously cleaned the picture three or four times without incident. "[QJuestions of foreseeability are for the court to determine as a matter of law when but a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” (supra, at 999), and "[t]here is no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable” (Smith v Curtis Lbr. Co., 183 AD2d 1018, 1019). This is not "the usual slip and fall situation where a plaintiff is caught by surprise when confronted by a dangerous condition which results in a fall and injury” (supra, at 1019). Defendants were not the insurers of plaintiff’s safety. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 95, 628 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepic-v-joco-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack