Opinion
9521 Index 153756/15
06-04-2019
Stefano BONVENTRE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SOHO MEWS CONDOMINIUM, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Penmark Management LLC, et al., Defendants.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Chad E. Sjoquist of counsel), for appellants. David Horowitz, P.C., New York (David Fischman of counsel), for respondent.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Chad E. Sjoquist of counsel), for appellants.
David Horowitz, P.C., New York (David Fischman of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 4, 2019, which denied the motion of defendants Soho Mews Condominium and Sequoia Property Management Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.Plaintiff's account of the accident makes clear that neither the ladder on which he climbed nor the surface on which the ladder was placed was defective or dangerous. Rather, it was the positioning and use of the ladder that caused plaintiff's fall. Furthermore, there is no evidence that defendants exercised any supervisory control or had any input in the ultimate positioning of the ladder, which plaintiff admittedly discussed with his supervisor (see Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 295, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117 [1992] ; Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp., 84 A.D.3d 516, 517, 923 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
Since defendant Watson Gold Designs, Inc. did not oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing its cross claim, the cross claim should have been dismissed (see e.g. Cassell v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 603, 70 N.Y.S.3d 385 [1st Dept. 2018].