Andersen v. Park Center Associates
| Decision Date | 19 May 1998 |
| Citation | 673 N.Y.S.2d 396,250 A.D.2d 473 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 4794 Jeanne R. ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARK CENTER ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Barry Salzman, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Robert J. Pfuhler, for Defendants-Respondents.
Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, TOM and SAXE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 24, 1997, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for a special trial preference, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the cross-motion granted and the complaint reinstated.
Defendants are the owners or operators of a hotel known as Park Central Hotel, located at 870 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Plaintiff Jeanne R. Andersen was a hotel patron staying with friends in room 517 of the hotel on October 1, 1993. She asserts that immediately upon arriving at their room, she went to the bathroom to use the toilet. Although she did not observe a leak at first, she felt water dripping from the ceiling onto her right shoulder as she sat on the toilet. However, at that time she did not look to see if any water was on the floor next to her. When she got up from the toilet she stepped onto the floor, at which time her right foot slipped in an accumulation of water, causing her to fall to her right knee. After she fell, the right side of her body, from her hip down to her knee, was wet. She had not mentioned the leak to her friends in the room before she fell, nor did her friends observe the leak before the accident. However, immediately after her fall plaintiff told her friends what happened, and then called the hotel desk to report both the leak in the bathroom and her fall. At that point, hotel employees came to her room, placed a bucket and towel on the floor and cut a hole in the ceiling. The next day the leak was fixed.
In response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, challenging the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence on the issue of notice, plaintiff submitted her own affidavit and those of two friends with whom she was staying in the hotel room at the time of the incident. All three affidavits asserted that the ceiling immediately surrounding the leak was stained with yellow and brown marks.
Proof of notice is essential to plaintiff's case (Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774). In the absence of actual notice, plaintiff may demonstrate that the condition existed for a period of time sufficient to afford the defendant the opportunity to discover...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. Carter
... ... is automatically entitled to a preference (see also ... Andersen v Park Ctr. Assoc, 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d ... 396 [1st Dept ... Sultan, M.D., and San Simeon by the Sound Center for Nursing ... and Rehabilitation ... ELIH ... ...
-
Clemente v. 205 W. 103 Owners Corp.
...for a sufficient period of time for defendant to discover and remedy any leak. Plaintiff's reliance on Andersen v. Park Ctr. Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dep't 1998) is thus misplaced. In Anderson, all of the admissible testimony was consistent and there was evidence of an......
-
Ratnikova v. Ziotas
...on age, which was denied as academic in the order appealed from, should be granted (see CPLR 3403[a][4] ; Anderson v. Park Ctr. Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 473, 475, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 ).The defendants' remaining contentions are not properly before this...
-
Ferriggi v. Best Yet Mkt. of Astoria, Inc.
...a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403(a)(4) based upon the plaintiff's age is granted without opposition (see Andersen v. Park Ctr. Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 473 [1st Dept.1998] ; Borenstein v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 425 [2d Dept.1998] ). The plaintiff shall file a copy of this order wit......
-
Expert witnesses
...because it had no relationship to the cause of the accident (lumber fell on the plaintiff ’s hand). Andersen v. Park Ctr. Assoc. , 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept. 1998). Expert testimony was not needed to determine that a brownish-yellow stain on ceiling indicated that a leak ha......
-
Witness competence
... Ask that testimony be admitted subject to connection. (And be sure to make the connection.) Cases Andersen v. Park Centre Association, 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept. 1998). Testimony that a brown-yellow stain on ceiling was sufficient to establish existence of a leak for a pe......
-
Witness competence
...plaintiff ’s lost profits, including offering estimates or projections of lost sales and profits. Andersen v. Park Centre Association , 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept. 1998). Testimony that a brown-yellow stain on ceiling was sufficient to establish existence of a leak for a per......
-
Witness examination
...ultimate issue in the case and usurp the function of the jury. § 15:160 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS — 15-30 Andersen v. Park Centre Associates, 250 A.D.2d 473, 673 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept. 1998). Lay person could testify to the existence of a leak in a ceiling for a period of time based on an observ......