Opinion
# 2018-051-501 Claim No. 127506
07-13-2018
SHARON SCINTA v. STATE OF NEW YORK
SEGAR & SCIORTINO PLLC BY: JENNIFER LUNSFORD, ESQ. HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD New York State Attorney General BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2018-051-501 |
| Claimant(s): | SHARON SCINTA |
| Claimant short name: | SCINTA |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127506 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DEBRA A. MARTIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | SEGAR & SCIORTINO PLLC BY: JENNIFER LUNSFORD, ESQ. |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD New York State Attorney General BY: THOMAS G. RAMSAY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 13, 2018 |
| City: | Rochester |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
FACTS:
Ms. Scinta brought this claim for premise liability. She was visiting Wyoming Correctional Facility on February 15, 2015 when she allegedly slipped and fell on ice on stairs as she exited the building. The trial was bifurcated and this decision is limited to the liability issue.
At the trial on June 14, 2018, Ms. Scinta testified that she drove from Fairport to the facility in Attica, New York with a friend, Anna Cooper, to visit her fiancé, an inmate at the facility. The temperature was very cold, with snow on the ground, but she did not remember if there was any precipitation. At approximately 8:15 a.m., claimant parked in the facility's handicap parking lot, walked a short distance to the exterior staircase of the building, climbed 5 steps, and entered through the main entrance. This was a different route into the prison than the other visitors, including Ms. Cooper, because she parked in the handicap lot. She claimed that the stairs were "icy and snowy" but did not note any problems using them. She did not recall if it was snowing when she entered. She was wearing sneakers.
All quotations are to the trial notes or audio recording unless otherwise indicated.
Photographs of the general area were taken on July 28, 2015 and introduced at trial. As claimant would have left the parking area in the foreground of Exhibits C and D, she would have stepped up onto a curb, traversed a wide cement sidewalk and ascended 5 steps of a concrete staircase that was divided by 2 metal handrails into 3 sections of equal size. She testified that she went up either the far right side or middle section of the staircase and held onto the railing with her left hand. She would have then traversed a large concrete landing that ran across the front of the building to the main entrance. There were 3 large windows immediately next to the entrance that faced this landing, the staircase, and the sidewalk.
After claimant's visit, at approximately 3:30 p.m., she exited the building the same way she entered and did not recall the weather conditions other than it was very cold. Claimant proceeded to the left or middle section of the stairway and began to descend the steps holding onto the rail. Claimant changed her testimony several times about which section of the stairs she descended and with which hand she held the rail. She testified, "as far as I can remember", she saw ice on the steps before she descended. Her foot slipped on the first step, causing her to land on her tailbone and slide down the remaining steps, ending up at the sidewalk. She made it to her car by herself, which was in a parking space about 10 spaces away from where she fell. It was later determined that she sustained a fractured ankle.
Ms. Cooper testified that it had snowed the night before and that she didn't want to drive herself because of that. But, she recalled it was not snowing as they drove to the facility. Ms. Cooper entered and exited the building separately from claimant and walked on a ramp, which she described as not shoveled and "icy" with no visible salting. She didn't recall if it was snowing when she left after the visit. Her testimony was so vague and regarding an area not related to the stairs, the Court gave it no weight.
At the close of the claimant's proof, defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 4401. The Court reserved its decision.
Defendant called Lieutenant Vicki Skipper (Lt. Skipper) to testify on behalf of the State. She has worked for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) for 20 years, primarily at this facility. On the day of the incident, Lt. Skipper worked from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. as the Assistant Watch Commander. She and the other staff members were required to use the main entrance to the building, using the same staircase as the claimant. In fact, the shift change occurred at 3 p.m. at which point approximately 75 employees went in and out of the building using the same stairs as the claimant, all within 15 to 30 minutes of her fall.
Lt. Skipper testified that complaints about outside conditions were generally not noted but she did not recall that there were any. DOCCS procedures were that any complaints about an icy condition on the staircase would have gone to the lobby officer and then to Lt. Skipper, and she would then call either a porter or the maintenance staff to remove the ice. Inspections of the outside were done by the Lobby Officer when they come in at 6:30 a.m. and the weather conditions were monitored throughout the day from the lobby windows near their post overlooking the stairs. They could also call for maintenance if weather conditions warranted it. The Watch Commander's logbook noted the outside temperature on the day in question was minus 6 degrees (Exhibit A). Lt. Skipper learned of the claimant's fall days after it occurred and she did not investigate it.
DECISION:
A property owner is responsible for using reasonable care in maintaining their property in a reasonably safe condition, considering all the circumstances, including the likelihood and seriousness of injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk. (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]). New York courts have long recognized the reality of living in a wintery environment and that "it was unreasonable to expect sidewalks and outside steps to be kept entirely free from snow and ice in this climate in the winter time." (Hallock v Ballachey, 284 NY 648, 649 [1940]). Furthermore, "property owners cannot be held responsible for accidents to their invitees arising from slippery or icy conditions of walks or steps on their premises where such condition is no more hazardous than the conditions prevailing on walks throughout the city." (Schwabl v St. Augustine's Church, 288 NY 554, 555 [1942]). The Court of Claims recognized "the fact that an [individual] falls on correctional facility premises does not render the state liable if the conditions existing at the time of the accident were not so unusual, dangerous, or different from the conditions ordinarily prevailing during the winter months in the locality." (Ansbro v State of New York, UID No. 2002-013-516 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 12, 2002][internal citations omitted]). Moreover, a negligence cause of action cannot be derived from a failure to remove all ice and snow from a given area. (Rodriguez v State of New York, UID No. 2005-013-501[Ct Cl, Patti, J. Feb. 28, 2005]; Zhu v State of New York, UID No. 2004-013-504 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Mar. 29, 2004]).
Claimant bears the burden of proving defendant breached its duty of care under the circumstance. In this case, there was a total lack of any evidence from which the Court could determine whether a breach of duty had occurred. There was no testimony nor documentary evidence describing the weather conditions on February 15, 2015. Claimant and Ms. Cooper could not recall whether it was snowing when they entered or exited the building. Other than claimant vaguely describing the landing as "white", and the steps as "icy and snowy", there was no proof as to how much snow or ice was on the ground or steps or how long it had been there. There was no meteorological evidence about the general weather conditions leading up to and including the day of the accident. In fact, the only objective evidence of the weather was Lt. Skipper's notation in her log of the extremely cold temperature. There was no estimate by claimant of the extent of the "icy" area, whether it was raised or smooth (an indication of its age) or coloration (an indication of its visibility). The testimony of claimant did not distinguish the condition of the stairs from the general condition of the parking lot or roads she traversed that day.
The Court notes that claimant was recently diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's, which could, understandably, account for the vagueness of her testimony.
Since it would be common to find ice on a concrete step on a minus 6-degree winter day in northern New York, claimant needed to prove how this situation was unreasonably dangerous, whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of an unreasonably dangerous condition, and what reasonable action defendant failed to take to remedy the situation. The fact that over 75 employees had traversed the stairway in question a mere 15 to 30 minutes before claimant fell suggested the "icy" conditions were neither noticeable nor unsafe. She did not say she had difficulty going up the steps, she did not complain to anyone about the condition, she didn't know if it was snowing when she entered or left, and she could not confirm or deny a change in the weather while she was in the building. Although defendant had no documentation of any snow or ice removal activities that day, the Court cannot speculate that any were required.
Since claimant did not report her accident that day and Lt. Skipper did not learn of it until days later, there was no documentation by defendant of the conditions and it was too late for any substantive investigation, assuming DOCCS was even aware that the condition of the steps was a factor in the accident. Defendant cannot be faulted for any failure with regard to their documentation or investigation.
Given the paucity of substantive evidence, the Court finds that claimant failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing a negligence cause of action against defendant. Consequently, her claim is dismissed. Let judgment be entered accordingly.
July 13, 2018
Rochester, New York
DEBRA A. MARTIN
Judge of the Court of Claims