Christoforatos v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 27 December 2011
• Parties: Demetri CHRISTOFORATOS, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09579
90 A.D.3d 970
935 N.Y.S.2d 641

Demetri CHRISTOFORATOS, appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 2011.

[935 N.Y.S.2d 642]

Lisa M. Comeau, Garden City, N.Y. (Ronemus & Vilensky LLP [Michael B. Ronemus], of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath, Margaret G. King, and Ellen Ravitch of counsel), for respondents City of New York and New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

Martyn, Toher & Martyn, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas M. Martyn of counsel), for respondent A Royal Flush, Inc.THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[90 A.D.3d 970] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered September 9, 2010, which, upon, inter alia, the granting of the motion of the defendant A Royal Flush, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the evidence, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Parks and Recreation on the issue of liability, and upon the denial of the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants City of New York, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and A Royal Flush, Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff was entering a portable restroom belonging to the defendant A Royal Flush, Inc., which had been installed on an area of grass in a park maintained by the defendant City of New York and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, when he slipped and fell. The plaintiff asserted that the slippery condition of an area bare of grass in front of the restroom door caused him to fall.

At trial, the plaintiff sought to offer the testimony of an expert on the issue of the placement of the portable restroom in a location where access required walking on grass rather than a paved surface, but was precluded from offering the expert's testimony.

Expert testimony has been found necessary when it...