From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luciano v. Niagara Frontier Voc. R. C., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 13, 1998

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Summary Judgment.

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Lisa A. Luciano (plaintiff) sustained injuries when her right foot became caught under a floor mat placed in front of an elevator in the Thaddeus J. Dulski Federal Building in Buffalo. Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant, Niagara Frontier Vocational Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Niagara), which has a contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide maintenance in the building. Plaintiffs alleged that Niagara was negligent in its care and maintenance of the floor mat, the edge of which was worn and curled. Niagara moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was contractually obligated only to clean the floor mats, not to provide or replace them. Niagara further argued that, even if it had a duty to provide or replace the floor mats, the complaint nevertheless should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that Niagara had either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion. The maintenance contract between Niagara and GSA is comprehensive and requires that Niagara employees report hazardous conditions of which they become aware. That provision imposes a duty upon Niagara that runs to third persons: like plaintiff, whose presence in the building was foreseeable ( see, Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 588-589). Niagara failed to establish as a matter of law that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition that caused plaintiff's injury ( cf., Cobrin v. County of Monroe, 212 A.D.2d 1011, 1012). The failure of Niagara to carry its burden requires the denial of the motion for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( see, Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 N.Y.2d 1062, 1063).


Summaries of

Luciano v. Niagara Frontier Voc. R. C., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Luciano v. Niagara Frontier Voc. R. C., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LISA A. LUCIANO et al., Respondents, v. NIAGARA FRONTIER VOCATIONAL…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 343

Citing Cases

Langgood v. Carrols, LLC

erally a question of fact for the jury’ " (Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 66, 77, 19…

Forde v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation

In fact, the clear and unambiguous language of the contract establishes that Markey's duties included…