Opinion
10-05-2016
Larry MORRIS, plaintiff-respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant-respondent, Keyspan Energy Delivery New York, et al., appellants-respondents, Joseph L. Balkan, Inc., respondent-appellant, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).
Cullen and Dykman, LLP, New York, NY (Margaret Mazlin of counsel), for appellants-respondents Keyspan Energy Delivery New York and The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. Leon Kowalski, Brooklyn, NY (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac [Joseph Horowitz ] of counsel), for appellant-respondent Tri–Messine Construction Co. David M. Santoro, New York, NY (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for appellant-respondent Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, NY (Stephen J. Molinelli of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Robert J. Berkowitz & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Andrew D. Weitz of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Marta Ross of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Cullen and Dykman, LLP, New York, NY (Margaret Mazlin of counsel), for appellants-respondents Keyspan Energy Delivery New York and The Hallen Construction Co., Inc.
Leon Kowalski, Brooklyn, NY (McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac [Joseph Horowitz ] of counsel), for appellant-respondent Tri–Messine Construction Co.
David M. Santoro, New York, NY (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for appellant-respondent Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, NY (Stephen J. Molinelli of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Robert J. Berkowitz & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Andrew D. Weitz of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Marta Ross of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Keyspan Energy Delivery New York and The Hallen Construction Co., Inc., the defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and the defendant Tri–Messine Construction Co. separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), dated December 4, 2013, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against each of them, and the defendant Joseph Balkan, Inc., cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff and the defendant City of New York, payable by the defendants Keyspan Energy Delivery New York, The Hallen Construction Co., Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Tri–Messine Construction Co., and Joseph Balkan, Inc., appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured on May 7, 2004, when his bicycle struck a hole in the roadway in front of 1509 Park Place in Brooklyn. The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York; a sewer contractor, Joseph Balkan, Inc. (hereinafter Balkan); Keyspan Energy Delivery New York and its excavation contractor The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter together the Keyspan defendants); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Con Ed); and Con Ed's paving contractor, Tri–Messine Construction Co. (hereinafter Tri–Messine). The Keyspan defendants, Con Ed, Balkan, and Tri–Messine (hereinafter collectively the moving defendants) separately moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against each of them. The plaintiff and the City opposed the motions, and Balkan opposed the motion by the Keyspan defendants. By order dated December 4, 2013, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied each of the motions.
A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street (see Brown v. Welsbach Corp., 301 N.Y. 202, 205, 93 N.E.2d 640 ; Sand v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 923, 925, 921 N.Y.S.2d 312 ; Cohen v. Schachter, 51 A.D.3d 847, 848, 857 N.Y.S.2d 727 ; Cino v. City of New York, 49 A.D.3d 796, 797, 854 N.Y.S.2d 201 ; Losito v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 854, 855, 833 N.Y.S.2d 564 ). Thus, in this case, each of the moving defendants had the burden of establishing that it did not perform any work on the portion of the roadway where the accident occurred or that it did not create the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff's injuries (see Sand v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d at 925, 921 N.Y.S.2d 312 ; Hayes v. DeMicco Bros., Inc., 34 A.D.3d 641, 642, 825 N.Y.S.2d 116 ; Ingles v. City of New York, 309 A.D.2d 835, 836, 766 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).
Here, none of the moving defendants satisfied its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it did not perform any work where the accident occurred or create the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's accident (see Pallotta v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 656, 657, 993 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; Terrell v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 787, 788, 901 N.Y.S.2d 709 ; Bocanegra v. Verizon New York, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 698, 699, 889 N.Y.S.2d 674 ; Lavaud v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 536, 844 N.Y.S.2d 719 ; Losito v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d at 855, 833 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; Hayes v. DeMicco Bros., Inc., 34 A.D.3d at 642, 825 N.Y.S.2d 116 ; Johnston v. City of New York, 18 A.D.3d 712, 713, 794 N.Y.S.2d 924 ; King v. County of Nassau, 262 A.D.2d 533, 692 N.Y.S.2d 430 ; Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 202 A.D.2d 469, 470, 610 N.Y.S.2d 796 ). In addition, the Keyspan defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that caused the plaintiff's accident was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Casiano v. St. Mary's Church, 135 A.D.3d 685, 22 N.Y.S.3d 595 ; Lazic v. Trump Vil. Section 3, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 776, 20 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; Barris v. One Beard St., LLC, 126 A.D.3d 831, 6 N.Y.S.3d 262 ; Baron v. 305–323 E. Shore Rd. Corp., 121 A.D.3d 826, 994 N.Y.S.2d 651 ; Bloomfield v. Jericho Union Free School Dist., 80 A.D.3d 637, 915 N.Y.S.2d 294 ). Accordingly, none of the moving defendants was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).