From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sterbinsky v. 780 Riverside Drive, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

05-10-2016

Steven STERBINSKY, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 780 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.

Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant. Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York (Steven C. November of counsel), for respondents.


Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant. Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York (Steven C. November of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly awarded partial summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this action where plaintiff Steven Sterbinsky, a cable television technician, was injured when, while walking on a metal grate on defendant's property, the grate collapsed causing him to fall down an air shaft. Defendant building owner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the collapse of the grate due to the corroded condition of the metal frame supporting it (see O'Connor v. 72 St. E. Corp., 224 A.D.2d 246, 637 N.Y.S.2d 412 [1st Dept.1996] ; Kai Chan v. 1058 Corp., 200 A.D.2d 434, 607 N.Y.S.2d 246 [1st Dept.1994] ; Dillenberger v. 74 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp., 155 A.D.2d 327, 547 N.Y.S.2d 296 [1st Dept.1989] ). Defendant's assertion that the condition of the frame was a latent defect, not observable upon reasonable inspection, is belied by, inter alia, the testimony of the building's porter, who stated that the edges of the grate were rusted, and by the contemporaneous observations of plaintiff's coworker and supervisor. Furthermore, defendant's claim of no notice is unavailing because notice is inferred when res ipsa loquitur applies (see Ezzard v. One East River Place, 129 A.D.3d 159, 8 N.Y.S.3d 195 ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sterbinsky v. 780 Riverside Drive, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Sterbinsky v. 780 Riverside Drive, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Steven STERBINSKY, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 780 RIVERSIDE DRIVE…

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

Date published: May 10, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
139 A.D.3d 458
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3660

Citing Cases

Valdez v. Upper Creston, LLC

Term, 1st Dept. 2006] ). Finally, plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony demonstrates that the accident was not…

Mejia v. Delgado

Initially, with respect to the third factor, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff did not contribute to…