Opinion
2015-02-13
Arcelia Del Carmen CUQUE, also known as Arcelia Soto, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sabiha AMIN, Defendant–Respondent.
Vandette Penberthy, LLP, Buffalo (Brittanylee Penberthy of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Law Offices of John Trop, Buffalo (Tiffany D'Angelo of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
Vandette Penberthy, LLP, Buffalo (Brittanylee Penberthy of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Law Offices of John Trop, Buffalo (Tiffany D'Angelo of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down a flight of stairs at an apartment she rented from defendant. According to plaintiff, her boot became caught on a protruding strip of metal that was attached to the lip of a step toward the top of the stairway. Having lost her balance, plaintiff reached for the handrail on the side of the stairway, but the railing came out of the wall, causing plaintiff to fall down the stairs. Following discovery, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability, contending that defendant negligently maintained the stairway. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we reject plaintiff's contention that the court should have applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to find that the stairway and handrail were defective as a matter of law. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where the plaintiff can establish, among other elements, that his or her injuries were caused by an “instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant” (Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, 226, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784, 492 N.E.2d 1200 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentalities that allegedly caused her injuries, i.e., the stairway and the handrail ( see Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489, 494, 655 N.Y.S.2d 844, 678 N.E.2d 456; Moore v. Ortolano, 78 A.D.3d 1652, 1653, 912 N.Y.S.2d 362). In any event, as the court properly determined, plaintiff also failed to establish as a matter of law that defendant created either of the defective conditions or had actual or constructive notice of them ( see generally Gaffney v. Norampac Indus., Inc., 109 A.D.3d 1210, 1211, 971 N.Y.S.2d 782). Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met her initial burden of proof, we conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant raises triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff's motion ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.