Samantha R. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samantha R. v. New York City Housing Authority

117 A.D.3d 600, 986 N.Y.S.2d 115

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

DecidedMay 22, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 600 (Samantha R. v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Samantha R. v. New York City Housing Authority, 117 A.D.3d 600, 986 N.Y.S.2d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered December 17, 2013, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Infant plaintiff was injured when, after kicking a soccer ball into a planting area on the premises of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), she tripped over a decorative wicket fence that surrounded the planting area and fell onto the pavement. Defendant GKC Industries, Inc. was the general [601]*601contractor hired by NYCHA to renovate the grounds of the subject premises several years earlier.

The record, including testimonial and photographic evidence, demonstrates that dismissal of the complaint as against both defendants is warranted since the alleged defective condition, namely the wicket fence, was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Matthews v Vlad Restoration Ltd., 74 AD3d 692 [1st Dept 2010]; Goldban v 56th Realty, 304 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiff’s expert failed to support his opinion that the planting area was defectively designed, and the provision of the Building Code alleged to have been violated is inapplicable to the planting area (see e.g. Etheridge v Marion A. Daniels & Sons, Inc., 96 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2012]).

In view of the finding that the defect is not actionable, we need not address the remaining arguments in favor of dismissal of the complaint.

Concur—Renwick, J.P, Richter, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered December 17, 2013, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Infant plaintiff was injured when, after kicking a soccer ball into a planting area on the premises of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), she tripped over a decorative wicket fence that surrounded the planting area and fell onto the pavement. Defendant GKC Industries, Inc. was the general [601]*601contractor hired by NYCHA to renovate the grounds of the subject premises several years earlier.

The record, including testimonial and photographic evidence, demonstrates that dismissal of the complaint as against both defendants is warranted since the alleged defective condition, namely the wicket fence, was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Matthews v Vlad Restoration Ltd., 74 AD3d 692 [1st Dept 2010]; Goldban v 56th Realty, 304 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiff’s expert failed to support his opinion that the planting area was defectively designed, and the provision of the Building Code alleged to have been violated is inapplicable to the planting area (see e.g. Etheridge v Marion A. Daniels & Sons, Inc., 96 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2012]).

In view of the finding that the defect is not actionable, we need not address the remaining arguments in favor of dismissal of the complaint.

Concur—Renwick, J.P, Richter, ManzanetDaniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 600, 986 N.Y.S.2d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samantha-r-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack