Opinion
2013-02-14
Valerie GUNTUR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent.
Michael P. Lagnado, New York, for appellant. Alimonti Law Offices, White Plains (Lydia S. Antoncic of counsel), for respondent.
Michael P. Lagnado, New York, for appellant. Alimonti Law Offices, White Plains (Lydia S. Antoncic of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, ROMÁN, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered October 7, 2011, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant airline established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell on “wet icy dirt” while boarding defendant's aircraft, after her flight had been delayed due to inclement weather. Defendant submitted, inter alia, climatological records showing that plaintiff's accident occurred during an ongoing storm, during which its duty to remedy a dangerous condition caused by the storm was suspended ( see Pippo v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 303, 304, 842 N.Y.S.2d 367 [1st Dept. 2007];Blackwood v. New York City Tr. Auth., 36 A.D.3d 522, 828 N.Y.S.2d 354 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Defendanthad no obligation to provide a constant remedy for tracked-in or leaking water during the storm, and showed that it took reasonable precautions to address wet conditions by laying a carpet runner along the jetbridge and placing a canopy over the aircraft door ( see Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 A.D.3d 462, 464–466, 884 N.Y.S.2d 402 [1st Dept. 2009];Solazzo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 21 A.D.3d 735, 800 N.Y.S.2d 698 [1st Dept. 2005],affd. 6 N.Y.3d 734, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748 [2005] ).
Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the testimony of defendant's employee, stating that the precipitation was “[o]n and off,” that day does not raise a triable issue since it does not show that plaintiff's accident occurred during “a significant lull in the storm,” or a reasonable time after the storm had ceased ( Pipero v. New York City Tr. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 493, 493, 894 N.Y.S.2d 39 [1st Dept. 2010];see Ioele v. Wal–Mart Stores, 290 A.D.2d 614, 616, 736 N.Y.S.2d 130 [3d Dept. 2002] ). Indeed, the employee also testified that the rain or snow ended “well into midnight the next morning.”
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.