Pineda v. 1741 Hone Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pineda v. 1741 Hone Realty Corp.

135 A.D.3d 567, 22 N.Y.S.3d 851

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2016

Docket16683 301512/09

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 567 (Pineda v. 1741 Hone Realty Corp.) 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

Pineda v. 1741 Hone Realty Corp., 135 A.D.3d 567, 22 N.Y.S.3d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons J.), entered September 24, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that as he was descending an interior stairway leading from the second floor to the first floor in defendant’s building, he slipped on rain water and fell through a glass door panel, causing him to sustain injuries.

Defendant failed to establish that, as a matter of law, it did not have constructive notice of the tracked-in rain water that accumulated on the stairs where plaintiff fell. Defendant failed to proffer any evidence that it took any measures to address the possibility of tracked-in water from accumulating on the stairs earlier in the day when it was raining, and failed to show when the stairs were last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff fell (see Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 421 [1st Dept 2011]).

Defendant demonstrated that the glass plate which plaintiff fell through after he slipped was not required to be shatterproof under any applicable provisions of the New York City Building Code, since defendant’s building was constructed prior to that requirement (see Katz v Blank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt, 100 AD3d 407, 407 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant nonetheless had a common-law duty “to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all the circumstances, including ‘the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk’ ” (Branch v SDC Discount Store, Inc., 127 AD3d 547, 547 [1st Dept 2015] [citation omitted]). Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was negligent by failing to install shatterproof glass, or to take measures to guard the glass panes, which were about four feet away from the bottom of the stairs where plaintiff fell, to protect against foreseeable injury. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons J.), entered September 24, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that as he was descending an interior stairway leading from the second floor to the first floor in defendant’s building, he slipped on rain water and fell through a glass door panel, causing him to sustain injuries.

Defendant failed to establish that, as a matter of law, it did not have constructive notice of the tracked-in rain water that accumulated on the stairs where plaintiff fell. Defendant failed to proffer any evidence that it took any measures to address the possibility of tracked-in water from accumulating on the stairs earlier in the day when it was raining, and failed to show when the stairs were last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff fell (see Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 421 [1st Dept 2011]).

Defendant demonstrated that the glass plate which plaintiff fell through after he slipped was not required to be shatterproof under any applicable provisions of the New York City Building Code, since defendant’s building was constructed prior to that requirement (see Katz v Blank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt, 100 AD3d 407, 407 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant nonetheless had a common-law duty “to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all the circumstances, including ‘the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk’ ” (Branch v SDC Discount Store, Inc., 127 AD3d 547, 547 [1st Dept 2015] [citation omitted]). Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was negligent by failing to install shatterproof glass, or to take measures to guard the glass panes, which were about four feet away from the bottom of the stairs where plaintiff fell, to protect against foreseeable injury. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 567, 22 N.Y.S.3d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pineda-v-1741-hone-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack