Rojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC

6 Citing cases

  1. Tamburo v. Long Island Univ.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4092 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The expert averred, among other things, that the slope of the step on which the plaintiff fell complied with New York State building codes in effect on the date of the alleged fall, that the step did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition, and that any defect that existed was trivial as a matter of law (see Poliziani v Culinary Inst. of Am., 167 A.D.3d 790, 791). However, in opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the slope of the step at issue was trivial and whether the slope of the step constituted a dangerous or defective condition (see Rojecki v Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993; Fiore v Plainview Plaza, LLC, 137 A.D.3d 1202, 1203-1204). The plaintiff submitted the report of an expert, who opined, inter alia, that the slope of the step was between six and eight times greater than that permitted by the New York State Building Code (see 2015 Bldg Code of NY St § 1011.7.1)

  2. Shuttleworth v. Saint Margaret's Roman Catholic Church in Middle Vill.

    209 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition (seeBasso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ; Doe v. Sutlingar Realty Corp., 98 A.D.3d 1076, 951 N.Y.S.2d 225 ). "In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition upon the landowner's property, the plaintiff must establish, among other things, that a dangerous or defective condition actually existed" ( Riley v. Lake Rd. Condominiums, 47 A.D.3d 697, 698, 849 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; seeRojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; Gonzalez v. Natick N.Y. Freeport Realty Corp., 91 A.D.3d 597, 598, 935 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the metal drainage grate, which was not in violation of any applicable code, was not in a defective or hazardous condition and that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition (seeRojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d at 993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243 ; Gonzalez v. Natick N.Y. Freeport Realty Corp., 91 A.D.3d at 598, 935 N.Y.S.2d 902 ; see generallyDeCourcey v. Briarcliff Cong. Church, 104 A.D.3d 799, 801, 961 N.Y.S.2d 487 ).

  3. Smith v. 3173 Gas Corp.

    216 A.D.3d 1192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    In order to impose liability upon a defendant in possession of real property in a slip-and-fall case, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous or defective condition (see Shuttleworth v Saint Margaret's R.C. Church in Middle Vil., 209 A.D.3d 786; Rojecki v Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993). Here, in support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the injured plaintiff's deposition testimony, which established that the ramp where the injured plaintiff slipped and fell was wet due to the rain that had fallen and was still falling at the time of the accident.

  4. Johnson v. Acumen Capital Partners, LLC

    213 A.D.3d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Here, the Acumen defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating (1) that the barrier arm was an open and obvious condition, and (2) that it was not inherently dangerous as a matter of law (seeEverett v. CMI Servs. Corp., 206 A.D.3d 620, 621, 170 N.Y.S.3d 132 ; Lonigro v. TDC Elecs., Inc., 215 A.D.2d 534, 536, 627 N.Y.S.2d 695 ). The Acumen defendants also demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged condition and that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition's existence (seeNelson v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc., 206 A.D.3d 929, 930, 170 N.Y.S.3d 595 ; Rojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

  5. Lattimore v. Thackurdeen

    194 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    The facts in the record do not indicate that the appellant was an out-of-possession landlord who relinquished control over the premises to her tenants (seeMiske v. Selvaggi, 175 A.D.3d 1526, 109 N.Y.S.3d 156 ; Davidson v. Steel Equities, 138 A.D.3d 911, 912, 30 N.Y.S.3d 275 ). "In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition upon the landowner's property, the plaintiff must establish that a dangerous or defective condition actually existed, and that the defendant either created the defect or had actual or constructive notice of it" ( Rojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243 ). "To provide constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it" ( Pryzywalny v. New York City Tr. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 598, 599, 892 N.Y.S.2d 181 ). Here, the appellant's submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that she lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition at the property.

  6. Huwer v. E Builders II Inc.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 33438 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    st be evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed on the property, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Phillips v. LSS Leasing Ltd. Liab. Co., 176 A.D.3d 750, 107 N.Y.S.3d 716 [2d Dept 2019]; Barrett v. New York City Tr. Auth., 176 A.D.3d 909, 111 N.Y.S.3d 615 [2d Dept 2019], Iv denied 35 N.Y.3d 914, 130 N.Y.S.3d 3 [2020]). The issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists generally depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury to determine (see Rivera v. City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 933, 140 N.Y.S.3d 726 [2d Dept 2021]; Watkins v. Brookdale Univ Hosp. & Med. Ctr.. 189 A.D.3d 933, 133 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2d Dept 2020]). To defeat a defendant's prima facie showing that no dangerous or defective condition existed on its property, a plaintiff must submit evidence, in admissible form, demonstrating the existence of a dangerous condition or defect (see Rojecki v. Genting N. Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243 [2d Dept 2019]; see also Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., 303 A.D.2d 482, 755 N.Y.S.2d 435 [2d Dept 2003]; Laventure v. McKay, 266 A.D.2d 516. 699 N.Y.S.2d 92 [2d Dept 1999]). Capelli established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.