Brown v. Howson
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05392,129 A.D.3d 570,12 N.Y.S.3d 54 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 15206, 104524/11 |
| Parties | Candice BROWN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. David HOWSON, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 570
12 N.Y.S.3d 54
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05392
Candice BROWN, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
David HOWSON, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
15206, 104524/11
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
June 23, 2015.
Vandamme Law Firm, P.C., New York (Hollis DeLeonardo Vandamme of counsel), for appellant.
Van Leer & Greenberg, New York (Evan Van Leer–Greenberg of counsel), for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered October 25, 2013, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants established prima facie that they had no notice of the alleged defective ceiling in the apartment in which plaintiff resided, by submitting building owner defendant David Howson's testimony that he was never informed about cracks or any other defect in the ceiling and plaintiff's testimony that she never informed building management or Howson of any such cracks (see Figueroa v. Goetz, 5 A.D.3d 164, 774 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.2004] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Her testimony that actual notice was given to defendants was conclusory. Her argument, largely unpreserved for review, that violations issued by the Department of Housing and Preservation (HPD) based on unrepaired conditions constituted
constructive notice is belied by HPD documents showing that, contrary to plaintiff's contention, HPD's reference to an apartment with ceiling problems on the third floor was not a mistaken reference to plaintiff's second-floor apartment.
The motion court erred in declining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quiroz v. Mem'l Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases
...could have requested additional discovery, including the foreman's deposition, but failed to do so (see Brown v. Howson, 129 A.D.3d 570, 571, 12 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Plaintiff cannot claim surprise or prejudice since he knew at all times of the presence at the job site of his own......
-
Correa v. Matsias
...the allegedly defective condition (see Ciaravino v. Bulldog Natl. Logistics, LLC, 146 A.D.3d 925, 927, 46 N.Y.S.3d 127 ; Brown v. Howson, 129 A.D.3d 570, 12 N.Y.S.3d 54 ; cf. Dittiger v. Isal Realty Corp., 290 N.Y. 492, 496, 49 N.E.2d 980 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an i......
-
Nelson v. E&M 2710 Clarendon LLC
...or otherwise unsuitable contractor unless it also appears that the employer either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care 129 A.D.3d 570might have ascertained, that the contractor was not properly qualified to undertake the work” (id. ). “Cases finding employers liable for negligent hi......
-
Quiroz v. Mem'l Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases
... ... additional discovery, including the foreman's deposition, ... but failed to do so (see Brown v Howson, 129 A.D.3d ... 570, 571 [1st Dept 2015]). Plaintiff cannot claim surprise or ... prejudice since he knew at all times of the ... ...