Vasquez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasquez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

100 A.D.3d 442, 955 N.Y.S.2d 1

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 442 (Vasquez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Vasquez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 100 A.D.3d 442, 955 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 9, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Laro Maintenance Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and Laro’s motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this trip-and-fall case, defendant Laro Maintenance contracted with the Port Authority to undertake responsibility for cleaning and inspecting stairs in the Port Authority Bus Terminal for defects. Plaintiff has alleged that Laro failed to fulfill its duty of care to her by not identifying the defective stair nosing she fell on.

The motion court erred in not dismissing plaintiffs action against Laro Maintenance. The evidence fails to show that an issue of fact exists regarding the enumerated exceptions of Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136 [2002]).

First, plaintiff concedes that Laro Maintenance did not completely displace the Port Authority, which retained its own inspection rights and the obligation to make repairs. Second, plaintiff could not have detrimentally relied on Laro’s performance of the contract, as she was unaware of the contract (Vushaj v Insignia Residential Group, Inc., 50 AD3d 393 [1st Dept 2008]). Finally, Laro, by its mere failure to inspect, did not launch a force or instrument of harm (see Church v Callanan Indus., 99 NY2d 104, 111-112 [2002]; All Am. Moving & Stor., Inc. v Andrews, 96 AD3d 674 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 9, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Laro Maintenance Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and Laro’s motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this trip-and-fall case, defendant Laro Maintenance contracted with the Port Authority to undertake responsibility for cleaning and inspecting stairs in the Port Authority Bus Terminal for defects. Plaintiff has alleged that Laro failed to fulfill its duty of care to her by not identifying the defective stair nosing she fell on.

The motion court erred in not dismissing plaintiffs action against Laro Maintenance. The evidence fails to show that an issue of fact exists regarding the enumerated exceptions of Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136 [2002]).

First, plaintiff concedes that Laro Maintenance did not completely displace the Port Authority, which retained its own inspection rights and the obligation to make repairs. Second, plaintiff could not have detrimentally relied on Laro’s performance of the contract, as she was unaware of the contract (Vushaj v Insignia Residential Group, Inc., 50 AD3d 393 [1st Dept 2008]). Finally, Laro, by its mere failure to inspect, did not launch a force or instrument of harm (see Church v Callanan Indus., 99 NY2d 104, 111-112 [2002]; All Am. Moving & Stor., Inc. v Andrews, 96 AD3d 674 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 442, 955 N.Y.S.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack