From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Navarro v. H. Heiden, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2014
115 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-20

Francisco NAVARRO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. H. HEIDEN, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.

Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Roy A. Kuriloff of counsel), for respondent.



Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Roy A. Kuriloff of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered August 8, 2013, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the wet exterior stairs of defendant's building. Defendants submitted evidence showing that it neither created nor had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused plaintiff's fall. Plaintiff, a porter at the building, testified that he had never complained to anyone about the alleged defective staircase and defendant showed that there had been no complaints about the staircase before the accident ( see e.g. Cruz v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 45 A.D.3d 355, 845 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1st Dept.2007] ).

Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the allegedly defective condition. Plaintiff's opposition consisted of affidavits from himself and his expert to the effect that, as alleged in his bill of particulars, the surface of the staircase had become worn and slippery ( see id.). The expert did not perform slip resistance testing on the stairs and otherwise addressed issues that were not material to plaintiff's claims ( see e.g. Sanders v. Morris Hgts. Mews Assoc., 69 A.D.3d 432, 892 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1st Dept.2010];Contreras v. Zabar's, 293 A.D.2d 362, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203 [1st Dept.2002] ).


Summaries of

Navarro v. H. Heiden, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2014
115 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Navarro v. H. Heiden, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Francisco NAVARRO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. H. HEIDEN, LLC…

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
115 A.D.3d 564
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1831

Citing Cases

Young-Borra v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp.

Upon defendant's motion for summary judgment now before the court, C.P.L.R. § 3212(b), defendant bears the…

Yook v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.

Therefore, to obtain summary judgment, defendants must make a prima facie showing that they maintained their…