Opinion
2013-01-31
Elida SHKRELI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Melito & Adolfsen PC, New York (Steven I. Lewbel of counsel), for Boston Properties, Inc., and BP 280 Park Avenue, LLC, appellants. Brill & Associates PC, New York (Corey M. Reichardt of counsel), for CIBC World Markets Corp., appellant.
Melito & Adolfsen PC, New York (Steven I. Lewbel of counsel), for Boston Properties, Inc., and BP 280 Park Avenue, LLC, appellants. Brill & Associates PC, New York (Corey M. Reichardt of counsel), for CIBC World Markets Corp., appellant.
Pugatch & Nikolis, Mineola (Phillip P. Nikolis of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 13, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered an electric shock while working as a cleaner in the commercial premises leased by defendant CIBC World Markets Corp. from the property owners, defendants Boston Properties, Inc., and BP 280 Park Avenue, LLC (collectively BP). Although plaintiff concedes that she does not know the precise source of the electricity which shocked her, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that the combination of floorwide flooding conditions, coupled with unattended live electrical equipment exposed to the wet conditions, constituted the hazardous condition which caused her alleged injuries ( see Shafer v. Edelstein, 26 Misc.3d 1203 [A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52649[U], 2009 WL 5153846 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2009] ). Moreover, given the passage of time between BP's discovery of the flooding condition and plaintiff's accident, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants were on actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition ( see DeMatteis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 11 A.D.3d 207, 782 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1st Dept. 2004] ).
CIBC was under a common-law duty to maintain the leased premises in a reasonably safe condition ( see DeMatteis, 11 A.D.3d at 208, 782 N.Y.S.2d 261;Chadis v. Grand Union Co., 158 A.D.2d 443, 444, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908 [2d Dept. 1990] ). Moreover, the record discloses that CIBC installed the instruments that caused the flood.
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.