From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lozano v. Mt. Hope Place Props., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jul 14, 2016
141 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Summary

In Lozano v. Mt. Hope Place Properties, Inc., 141 A.D.3d 455 [1st Dept 2016], the Court held that the defendant property owner demonstrated that it did not have notice of defects in the subject ceiling, since it did not have "prior leaks or water staining" before the ceiling collapsed.

Summary of this case from Fabian v. Memadet Realty Corp.

Opinion

07-14-2016

Juan LOZANO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MT. HOPE PLACE PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for appellant. Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains (Matthew J. Rosen of counsel), for respondents.


Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Mark H. Edwards of counsel), for appellant.

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains (Matthew J. Rosen of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered January 20, 2015, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a portion of the bathroom ceiling in his apartment fell on his head. Defendants demonstrated that they had no notice of the alleged defective condition that caused the ceiling to collapse by submitting the deposition testimony of the building superintendent and plaintiff that there were no prior leaks or water staining present on the bathroom ceiling in the months prior to the accident (see Brown v. Howson, 129 A.D.3d 570, 12 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept.2015] ; Figueroa v. Goetz, 5 A.D.3d 164, 165, 774 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.2005] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff does not contest that the underlying cause of the ceiling collapse was a bathtub overflowing in an apartment located two floors above earlier that day. Plaintiff presents nothing beyond mere speculation to support his assertion that the accident was related to defendants' prior repairs of the ceiling because there is nothing in the record to suggest that the condition that necessitated the prior repairs may have contributed to the leak (see Figueroa, at 165, 774 N.Y.S.2d 9 ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them unavailing.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lozano v. Mt. Hope Place Props., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jul 14, 2016
141 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

In Lozano v. Mt. Hope Place Properties, Inc., 141 A.D.3d 455 [1st Dept 2016], the Court held that the defendant property owner demonstrated that it did not have notice of defects in the subject ceiling, since it did not have "prior leaks or water staining" before the ceiling collapsed.

Summary of this case from Fabian v. Memadet Realty Corp.
Case details for

Lozano v. Mt. Hope Place Props., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Juan LOZANO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MT. HOPE PLACE PROPERTIES, INC., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 14, 2016

Citations

141 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
34 N.Y.S.3d 893
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5545

Citing Cases

Fabian v. Memadet Realty Corp.

This admissible evidence satisfies Memadet Realty's initial burden to show that it neither created the…

Coste-Pichardo v. Neveibais, Inc.

"On a motion for summary judgment, a property owner has the initial burden of demonstrating that it neither…