From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beras v.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 19, 2014
118 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-19

Sandra BERAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.

Joelson & Rochkind, New York (Kenneth Joelson of counsel), for appellant. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent.


Joelson & Rochkind, New York (Kenneth Joelson of counsel), for appellant. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 8, 2013, as amended May 29, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell as she descended the interior stairs of defendant's building. Defendant submitted evidence, including the testimony of its supervisor of caretakers, as to its activities on the day of the accident, and when the area where plaintiff fell was last inspected and cleaned ( see Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 102 A.D.3d 407, 959 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1st Dept.2013]; Smith v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 50 A.D.3d 499, 500–501, 856 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1st Dept.2008] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning defendant's constructive notice of the oily condition of the stairs. Although the record shows that the stairwell was last inspected at approximately 1 p.m. on a Sunday and plaintiff fell at 7 p.m. that evening, “[t]he court cannot impose a duty upon a municipal authority to alter its cleaning schedule or hire additional cleaners without a showing that the established schedule is manifestly unreasonable,” which was not made here ( Harrison v. New York City Tr. Auth., 94 A.D.3d 512, 514, 941 N.Y.S.2d 622 [1st Dept.2012];see Rivera v. 2160 Realty Co., L.L.C., 4 N.Y.3d 837, 797 N.Y.S.2d 369, 830 N.E.2d 267 [2005] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. TOM, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Beras v.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 19, 2014
118 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Beras v.

Case Details

Full title:Sandra BERAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Jun 19, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 584
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4572

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Thus, the box could have been deposited near the walkway a few minutes before plaintiff's accident (seeRivera…