Clark v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 25 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | 3049. |
| Citation | 7 A.D.3d 440,2004 NY Slip Op 04114,777 N.Y.S.2d 450 |
| Parties | RUSSELL C. CLARK, JR., Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
We affirm the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the record establishes that neither defendant received actual or constructive notice of the elevator door malfunction that led to plaintiff's injury. With regard to defendant elevator maintenance contractor (Start), the deposition testimony of Start's employee establishes that Start, whose contract to maintain the subject elevator began only one day prior to the accident, did not receive notice of the subject defect before the accident occurred, and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. With regard to defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the evidence submitted by NYCHA was, contrary to the motion court's view, sufficient to establish that NYCHA had neither actual nor constructive notice of the door malfunction prior to the accident (see De Sanctis v Montgomery El. Co., 304 AD2d 936, 936-937 [2003]; Tashjian v Strong & Assoc., 225 AD2d 907, 908-909 [1996]). While plaintiff and his father allege that prior complaints were made to NYCHA personnel concerning the malfunctioning doors, such allegations are too conclusory to raise a triable issue of fact (see Carlos v New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 262 AD2d 515, 516 [1999]). Finally, the affidavit of plaintiff's elevator repair expert failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the repairs that were made to the elevator a few days prior to the accident were related to the malfunction that caused plaintiff's injuries (see Nivens v New York City Hous. Auth., 246 AD2d 520, 521 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 805 [1998]).
In view of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiff's remaining arguments.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y. City Inc.
...Hous. Auth., 62 A.D.3d 419, 878 N.Y.S.2d 724 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 2009 WL 2779372 [2009]; Clark v. New York City Hous. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 440, 777 N.Y.S.2d 450 [2004] ). Sam Radoncic, UCP's building services director, testified at his deposition that he was responsible for address......
-
Johnson v. Wythe Place, LLC
...there were no prior repairs, complaints, or reports of prior incidents involving the same step (see Clark v. New York City Hous. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 440, 777 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2004] ). Nor was there any evidence of any violations or citations issued regarding the staircase.As to constructi......
-
Fasano v. Euclid Hall Assocs., L.P.
...A.D.3d 419, 420, 878 N.Y.S.2d 724 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 2009 WL 2779372 [2009] ; Clark v. New York City Hous. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 440, 440, 777 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2004] ). Further, plaintiff's expert's opinion was speculative and conclusory, and lacked evidentiary found......
-
Brown v. Howson
...were insufficiently specific and the alleged notice too far in the past to raise an issue of fact (see Clark v. New York City Hous. Auth., 7 A.D.3d 440, 777 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2004] ). The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to this case, since defendants did not have exclusiv......