From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lombardi v. P'ship 92 W., L.P.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 18, 2015
129 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

15467, 156968/12

06-18-2015

John LOMBARDI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. PARTNERSHIP 92 WEST, L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP, New York (Amara S. Faulkner of counsel), for appellants. The Taub Law Firm, P.C., New York (Bruce E. Wingate of counsel), for respondents.


Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP, New York (Amara S. Faulkner of counsel), for appellants.

The Taub Law Firm, P.C., New York (Bruce E. Wingate of counsel), for respondents.

GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, FRIEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered April 10, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the negligence and loss of consortium causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Lombardi alleges that the drop-down ladder on defendants' fire escape malfunctioned as he was descending to the street, causing his foot to be trapped and injuring him. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of the absence of any defect in the fire escape, or that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged defect. Their manager and superintendent testified that they did not service or test the fire escape prior to plaintiff's accident, and defendants did not produce any inspection reports (see Del Carmen Cuaya Coyotl v. 2504 BPE Realty LLC, 114 A.D.3d 620, 980 N.Y.S.2d 767 [1st Dept.2014] ). Since defendants made no showing of inspections of the fire escape before the accident, they “failed to show lack of constructive notice as a matter of law, requiring denial of their motion regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers” (Showverer v. Allerton Assoc., 306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 44 [1st Dept.2003] ).

Defendants' contention that plaintiff's use of the fire escape to exit an apartment in a nonemergency situation was unforeseeable and unreasonable presents issues of fact for the jury (see Lesocovich v. 180 Madison Ave. Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 982, 599 N.Y.S.2d 526, 615 N.E.2d 1010 [1993] ).


Summaries of

Lombardi v. P'ship 92 W., L.P.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 18, 2015
129 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Lombardi v. P'ship 92 W., L.P.

Case Details

Full title:John LOMBARDI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. PARTNERSHIP 92 WEST…

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

Date published: Jun 18, 2015

Citations

129 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
129 A.D.3d 547
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 5258

Citing Cases

Luna v. Broadcom W. Dev. Co.

Because factual issues preclude dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as discussed above, the court…

Farella v. 351 E 61 Realty LLC

Defendants' contention that plaintiff was intoxicated when she agreed to go out onto the fire escape, and…