Bonnett v. Rose Assocs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 13943,Index No. 156597/17,Case No. 2020-03719 |
| Citation | 150 N.Y.S.3d 56,194 A.D.3d 635 |
| Parties | David BONNETT, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ROSE ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Aggressive Shade Glass & Awning Co. Inc., Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
194 A.D.3d 635
150 N.Y.S.3d 56
David BONNETT, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
ROSE ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents,
Aggressive Shade Glass & Awning Co. Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
13943
Index No. 156597/17
Case No. 2020-03719
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED May 27, 2021
Weiser & McCarthy, New York (Bari Shinbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria (Boris Bernstein of counsel), for David Bonnett, respondent.
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for Rose Associates, Inc. and West Eden LLC, respondents.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Oing, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered August 3, 2020, which denied defendant Aggressive Shade Glass & Awning Co. Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff suffered injury when he unlocked a window in his apartment and the top sash of the window slammed down on his fingers. Defendant Aggressive is the service company that was hired by defendants building owner and manager to repair the window after plaintiff had complained that the bottom part of the window was stiff and difficult to open. The complaint alleges that Aggressive created or exacerbated the unsafe condition of the top part of the window through its negligent inspection.
Aggressive's employee testified that, although he did not have an independent recollection of inspecting the window at issue, it was his habit and routine practice to inspect the top part of the window by using a suction to yank the window open and closed to check if the balances were broken. He further testified that he wrote on the work ticket for the apartment that balances needed to be ordered for plaintiff's window. No other person touched the window between the time of the inspection and the accident.
Aggressive may be held liable to plaintiff under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bullen v. Cohnreznick, LLP
-
B.G.R. Realty LLC v. Stein
...affirmed, without costs.At the time the subject apartment was vacated in August 2011 by a previous tenant, who had a preferential rent, 194 A.D.3d 635 petitioner landlord was entitled to apply the relevant vacancy and guidelines increase permitted under the Rent Act of 2011 (L 2011, ch 97) ......
-
Character & habit
...’s contributory negligence where there were a sufficient number of such incidents to infer negligence. Bonnett v. Rose Assocs., Inc. , 194 A.D.3d 635 (1st Dept. 2021). The testimony of Aggressive’s employee was properly considered in support of Aggressive’s motion for summary judgment to sh......