Criscenti v. Verizon

• Decision Date: 09 October 2012
• Citation: 952 N.Y.S.2d 146,99 A.D.3d 478,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06739
• Parties: Gene Ann CRISCENTI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. VERIZON, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Carson Industries, LLP, Defendant. Gene Ann Criscenti, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Communications Construction Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, JEK Communications, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 478

952 N.Y.S.2d 146

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06739

Gene Ann CRISCENTI, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.VERIZON, et al., Defendants–Appellants,Carson Industries, LLP, Defendant.

Gene Ann Criscenti, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Communications Construction Group, LLC, et al., Defendants,JEK Communications, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.

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

Oct. 9, 2012.

Ledy–Gurren, Bass & Siff, L.L.P., New York (Deborah Bass of counsel), for Verizon New York Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Telesector Resources Group, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., appellants.

Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Terrance Ingrao of counsel), for Marble Heights of Westchester Inc., appellant.

McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Andrew D. Showers of counsel), for JEK Communications, Inc., appellant.

Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C., Forest Hills, for respondent.

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, CATTERSON, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, JJ.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 28, 2011 and August 3, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants JEK Communications, Inc.'s, Marble Heights of Westchester's, Verizon, Verizon Services Corp., Inc., Telesector Resources Group, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc.'s respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of said defendants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on the cover of a Verizon utility box located in a common-area lawn in her condominium complex. Without a showing of notice to defendants, the fact that the utility box cover was slippery when wet does not raise an issue of fact as to negligence ( see Contreras v. Zabar's, 293 A.D.2d 362, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203 [1st Dept.2002] ). Nor do plaintiff's expert opinions raise an issue of fact, since they are unsupported either by the record or by specific, applicable safety standards ( see id.).

Plaintiffs strict products liability claim fares no better. The record demonstrates conclusively that defendants did not manufacture, sell or distribute the utility box ( see Reeps v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 94 A.D.3d 475, 476, 941 N.Y.S.2d 597 [1st Dept.2012] ).