Witt v. Hill Street Commercial

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witt v. Hill Street Commercial

59 A.D.3d 217, 873 N.Y.S.2d 59

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 217 (Witt v. Hill Street Commercial) 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

Witt v. Hill Street Commercial, 59 A.D.3d 217, 873 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 16, 2007, which granted the motions of defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate in this action where plaintiff Barbara Witt, while at her husband plaintiff Phillip Witt’s office, which was closed for business that day, was looking for a bathroom when she opened a door marked “Employees Only,” and fell down a flight of stairs as she attempted to turn on a light. Following a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by defendant building owner and third-party defendant commercial tenant (Phillip’s employer), plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether there were structural defects on the premises, or whether any act or omission by the owner or tenant proximately caused the injuries that resulted from Barbara’s fall (see e.g. Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189, 190-191 [2004]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the closed door marked “Employees Only,” in an office that was closed for business, did not constitute a trap or hazardous condition, particularly since plaintiffs failed to provide a nexus between the conditions existing in the premises and Barbara’s fall.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz 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 (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 16, 2007, which granted the motions of defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate in this action where plaintiff Barbara Witt, while at her husband plaintiff Phillip Witt’s office, which was closed for business that day, was looking for a bathroom when she opened a door marked “Employees Only,” and fell down a flight of stairs as she attempted to turn on a light. Following a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by defendant building owner and third-party defendant commercial tenant (Phillip’s employer), plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether there were structural defects on the premises, or whether any act or omission by the owner or tenant proximately caused the injuries that resulted from Barbara’s fall (see e.g. Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189, 190-191 [2004]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the closed door marked “Employees Only,” in an office that was closed for business, did not constitute a trap or hazardous condition, particularly since plaintiffs failed to provide a nexus between the conditions existing in the premises and Barbara’s fall.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 217, 873 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witt-v-hill-street-commercial-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack