From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graul v. Van Damme

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Mar 19, 2021
192 A.D.3d 1549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

916 CA 20-00309

03-19-2021

Linda GRAUL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William J. VAN DAMME and Patricia M. Laskowski, Defendants-Appellants.

BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK T. WHITFORD, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (ELLEN B. STURM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.


BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK T. WHITFORD, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (ELLEN B. STURM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, WINSLOW, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for injuries plaintiff sustained when she fell while stepping from a platform inside defendants’ restaurant and bar, defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ). Although defendants contend that the platform did not constitute a dangerous condition, the determination of such an issue "depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury" ( Hayes v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC , 100 A.D.3d 1532, 1533, 954 N.Y.S.2d 348 [4th Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, defendants failed to establish that the platform, when considered in conjunction with the surrounding lighting conditions and the lack of visual cues marking the change in elevation, did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition (see Sawyers v. Troisi , 95 A.D.3d 1293, 1294, 945 N.Y.S.2d 188 [2d Dept. 2012] ; see generally Powers v. St. Bernadette's R.C. Church , 309 A.D.2d 1219, 1219, 765 N.Y.S.2d 102 [4th Dept. 2003] ). Moreover, the fact that plaintiff had traversed the platform prior to her fall does not determine, as a matter of law, whether the platform constituted a dangerous condition (see generally Powers , 309 A.D.2d at 1219, 765 N.Y.S.2d 102 ).

We likewise conclude that defendants failed to establish that the hazard posed by the platform was open and obvious and thus that they had no duty to warn plaintiff (see Hayes , 100 A.D.3d at 1533, 954 N.Y.S.2d 348 ). "Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances ... [, and a] condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted" ( Calandrino v. Town of Babylon , 95 A.D.3d 1054, 1056, 944 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2d Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hayes , 100 A.D.3d at 1533-1534, 954 N.Y.S.2d 348 ). Based on the circumstances discussed above, we conclude that defendants failed to establish that the danger was so obvious that it would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer as a matter of law (see Hayes , 100 A.D.3d at 1534, 954 N.Y.S.2d 348 ).

Contrary to defendants’ further contention, their submissions, which included plaintiff's deposition testimony, failed to establish that plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall (see generally Rinallo v. St. Casimir Parish , 138 A.D.3d 1440, 1441, 31 N.Y.S.3d 711 [4th Dept. 2016] ). Additionally, although plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent in failing to observe the step or in failing to remember that the step was there, we conclude that, contrary to their contention, defendants failed to establish that plaintiff fell solely due to her own negligence (see Powers , 309 A.D.2d at 1219-1220, 765 N.Y.S.2d 102 ).

In light of defendants’ failure to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, Supreme Court properly denied the motion regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ).


Summaries of

Graul v. Van Damme

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Mar 19, 2021
192 A.D.3d 1549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Graul v. Van Damme

Case Details

Full title:LINDA GRAUL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM J. VAN DAMME AND PATRICIA M…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 19, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 1549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
192 A.D.3d 1549
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1643

Citing Cases

Saravo-Schectman v. Pinchback

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the height differential associated with the…