From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Polakowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 15, 1991
175 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

August 15, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Gorski, J.).


On the record, the jury could reasonably have concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that defendant-landlord had actual prior notice of the allegedly defective condition of the bathroom ceiling. Plaintiff claimed that several months before the ceiling collapsed, the landlord had made an inspection of the premises and should have been aware of its defective condition. She also testified that, with the assistance of a neighbor and tenant organizer, she sent a written complaint to the landlord about needed apartment repairs, including the bathroom ceiling. In contrast, the landlord denied receiving any written correspondence concerning the subject premises and testified that his inspection of the premises did not reveal a problem with plaintiff's bathroom ceiling. Thus, while there was conflicting testimony as to whether the landlord had received notice of the alleged condition in plaintiff's bathroom before the incident occurred in June 1985, the jury resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendant and the record presents no reasonable basis to disturb the jury's verdict. (Picciallo v Norchi, 147 A.D.2d 540.)

Furthermore, evidence of defendant-landlord's repair bills was admissible (see, Prestige Fabrics v Novick Co., 60 A.D.2d 517), to rebut plaintiff's claim that no repairs had been made to any of the tenants' apartments in the subject building. Although defense counsel, on summation, improperly commented that the bills indicated that repairs were, in fact, generally made, the error was not of sufficient significance to warrant a reversal.

Additionally, plaintiff was not prejudiced by defense counsel's summation remarks since the comments, when read in context, were within the bounds of the wide latitude allowed to counsel on summation, and in any event, any possible prejudice was corrected by the court's curative instructions during its charge. (See, Kwasny v Feinberg, 157 A.D.2d 396.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Polakowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 15, 1991
175 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Polakowski

Case Details

Full title:MARITZA RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. JOHN POLAKOWSKI, Doing Business as KIRLA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Aug 15, 1991

Citations

175 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
573 N.Y.S.2d 177

Citing Cases

Goldberg v. Sottile Megna, M.D., P.C.

The conduct of defense counsel cited by plaintiff did not divert the jurors' attention from the issues or…

Bacigalupo v. Healthshield

The defendants' contention that plaintiffs counsel made several improper comments during closing argument is…