From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palionis v. Jakobson Props., LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 23, 2018
157 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

5503 Index 150016/13

01-23-2018

Gerard PALIONIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JAKOBSON PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York (Arnold E. DiJoseph, III of counsel), for appellant. Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for respondents.


Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York (Arnold E. DiJoseph, III of counsel), for appellant.

Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for respondents.

Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered March 4, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this case, defendants owed no duty, statutory or otherwise, to plaintiff to provide continuous illumination in the stairway upon which plaintiff slipped during the ongoing blackout resulting from Hurricane Sandy (see e.g. Kopsachilis v. 130 E. 18 Owners Corp., 11 N.Y.3d 512, 873 N.Y.S.2d 241, 901 N.E.2d 734 [2008] ; Viera v. Riverbay Corp., 44 A.D.3d 577, 845 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Plaintiff's reliance on Goldstein v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 115 A.D.2d 34, 499 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 1986], lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 604, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 497 N.E.2d 706 [1986], is misplaced as the defendant in Goldstein created a dangerous situation by encouraging the tenants to use the unlighted stairways to fetch water from the fire hydrant that the building superintendent had opened up for them. Here, nothing in the record shows that defendants encouraged plaintiff or other tenants to use the unlighted stairs in any way. To the extent plaintiff is arguing that defendants voluntarily assumed a duty of care by taking affirmative acts to alleviate the hazardous condition, and that he relied on such acts to his detriment, the record does not demonstrate that he relied on the actions taken by defendants in deciding to use the stairs to leave the building (see Heard v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 72–73, 603 N.Y.S.2d 414, 623 N.E.2d 541 [1993] ; Nallan v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 523, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451 [1980] ).


Summaries of

Palionis v. Jakobson Props., LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 23, 2018
157 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Palionis v. Jakobson Props., LLC

Case Details

Full title:Gerard PALIONIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JAKOBSON PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 2018

Citations

157 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
157 A.D.3d 592
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 389

Citing Cases

Barna v. Belmont Mgmt.

We disagree. It is true that defendants owed no common law duty to provide lighting in the stairwell during a…