Opinion
Appeal No. 15362 No.2021-00980 No. 2022-01247 Index Nos. 157227/15 595006/16
02-24-2022
Carl H.R. Nestenborg, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Standard International Management, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And Third Party Actions.] Appeal No. 15362 No. 2021-00980
Cartafalsa, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Anthony Orcel of counsel), for appellants. David Horowitz, P.C., New York (Christopher S. Joslin of counsel), for respondent.
Cartafalsa, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Anthony Orcel of counsel), for appellants.
David Horowitz, P.C., New York (Christopher S. Joslin of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered March 3, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Standard International Management LLC, Andre Balazs Properties, ABG Standard Operator LLC, and AB Green Gansevoort LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not create or have notice of the allegedly hazardous condition of the bathroom sink that dislodged from the wall and caused plaintiff's injury. Although defendants submitted testimony regarding their periodic preventive maintenance checks of the hotel guest rooms performed at the time of the witness' deposition, they did not submit any evidence stating when the sink was last inspected before plaintiff's accident. In fact, it was not clear from the evidence whether any periodic checks at all were taking place at the time of plaintiff's accident in 2014 (see Mandel v 340 Owners Corp., 189 A.D.3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2020]; Clarkin v In Line Rest. Corp., 148 A.D.3d 559, 559-560 [1st Dept 2017]). In this regard, defendants' witness on maintenance procedures followed at the hotel was not in their employ on the date of plaintiff's accident.