Topchieva v. Lovett Co., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Topchieva v. Lovett Co., LLC

120 A.D.3d 413, 990 N.Y.S.2d 815

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2014

Docket12613 111750/10

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 413 (Topchieva v. Lovett Co., LLC) 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

Topchieva v. Lovett Co., LLC, 120 A.D.3d 413, 990 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 20, 2013, which denied the motion of defendants the Lovett Company, L.L.C. and the Lex 54 Condominium for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As clearly depicted on the surveillance video included in the record, plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell immediately upon entering the lobby of defendants’ building. One of the lobby’s double glass doors was closed and locked, while the door through which plaintiff entered was unlocked and periodically held open by the doorman for pedestrians who were entering and exiting the building, including plaintiff. The evidence shows that while a mat was placed at the threshold, it was primarily placed in front of the locked door. After examining the video, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly held that there was an issue of fact as to whether defendants were negligent in their placement of the mat.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 20, 2013, which denied the motion of defendants the Lovett Company, L.L.C. and the Lex 54 Condominium for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As clearly depicted on the surveillance video included in the record, plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell immediately upon entering the lobby of defendants’ building. One of the lobby’s double glass doors was closed and locked, while the door through which plaintiff entered was unlocked and periodically held open by the doorman for pedestrians who were entering and exiting the building, including plaintiff. The evidence shows that while a mat was placed at the threshold, it was primarily placed in front of the locked door. After examining the video, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly held that there was an issue of fact as to whether defendants were negligent in their placement of the mat.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 413, 990 N.Y.S.2d 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/topchieva-v-lovett-co-llc-nyappdiv-2014.