From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gordon v. Talleyrand Crescent Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-05166

Argued April 1, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Talleyrand Management, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered April 29, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Michael F. Harris, New York, N.Y. (Carol R. Finocchio, Lawrence B. Goodman, and Susan M. Daly of counsel), for appellant.

Bozeman Trott Savage, LLP, Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Sanford F. Young, P.C. [Jan B. Rothman] of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior steps located in front of her apartment door in the Talleyrand Crescent apartment complex. She commenced this action against, among others, Talleyrand Management, LLC (hereinafter Talleyrand), the on-site management entity for the Talleyrand Crescent apartments. The Supreme Court denied Talleyrand's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. We reverse.

In opposition to Talleyrand's prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether Talleyrand had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition (see Voss v. D C Parking, 299 A.D.2d 346; Simmonds v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 296 A.D.2d 487). A finding that the subject ice patch existed for a sufficient length of time for Talleyrand to have discovered and remedied it would be based on speculation (see Penny v. Pembrook Mgt., 280 A.D.2d 590; Sellet v. United Artists Theaters, 251 A.D.2d 488; Bertman v. Board of Mgrs. of Omni Ct. Condominium I, 233 A.D.2d 283).

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gordon v. Talleyrand Crescent Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Gordon v. Talleyrand Crescent Dev. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HYACINTH GORDON, plaintiff-respondent, v. TALLEYRAND CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 793

Citing Cases

Taylor v. New York City Tr. Auth

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the…

Montano v. Quail Run Condominium I

Third, liability could be imposed if a comprehensive maintenance contract is such that the contracting party…