From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miki v. 335 Madison Avenue, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 1, 2012
93 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-03-1

Patrice MIKI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 335 MADISON AVENUE, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Jaroslawicz & Jaros LLC, New York (Norman Frowley of counsel), for appellant. James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondents.


Jaroslawicz & Jaros LLC, New York (Norman Frowley of counsel), for appellant. James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondents.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, RICHTER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered January 20, 2011, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a bent “lip” on the edge of the metal molding surrounding an access door, which was located on the floor of a heavily-trafficked room on the mezzanine level of premises owned by defendant 335 Madison and managed by defendant Milstein. Defendant General Electric leased the mezzanine level of the premises and subleased it to plaintiff's employer, nonparty American Independence.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that the access door violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–301.1, since she failed to allege the statute in, or seek leave to add it to, her bill of particulars ( see generally Reilly v. Newireen Assoc., 303 A.D.2d 214, 217–218, 756 N.Y.S.2d 192 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 508, 764 N.Y.S.2d 235, 795 N.E.2d 1244 [2003] ). Moreover, the claim lacks merit, as the statute merely imposes a general duty on owners to maintain their premises, and does not specifically address the alleged structural defect at issue ( see Guzman v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 559, 516 N.Y.S.2d 451, 509 N.E.2d 51 [1987]; see also Maksuti v. Best Italian Pizza, 27 A.D.3d 300, 811 N.Y.S.2d 375 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 715, 826 N.Y.S.2d 180, 859 N.E.2d 920 [2006]; cf. Cusumano v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 319, 327–328, 910 N.Y.S.2d 410, 937 N.E.2d 74 [2010, Lippman, Ch. J., concurring] ).

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to plaintiff's common-law negligence claim by submitting evidence that they did not create or have notice of the alleged dangerous condition. In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the record shows that plaintiff and her coworkers had entered and exited the subject room several times a day, over a period of years, and there had been no complaints or incidents related to the metal molding or bent lip before the accident ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837–838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 [1986] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Miki v. 335 Madison Avenue, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 1, 2012
93 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Miki v. 335 Madison Avenue, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Patrice MIKI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 335 MADISON AVENUE, LLC, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2012

Citations

93 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
940 N.Y.S.2d 38
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1553

Citing Cases

Velocci v. Stop & Shop

We reject plaintiff's request to take judicial notice of section 28–301.1 of the 2008 Building Code, which…

Stubbs v. 350 East Fordham Road, LLC

The court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege…