Daria v. BEACON CAPITAL COMPANY, INC.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2002 |
| Citation | 749 N.Y.S.2d 79,299 A.D.2d 312 |
| Parties | ANTHONY DARIA et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>BEACON CAPITAL COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, and<BR>MICHAEL SERINO et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The plaintiff Anthony Daria allegedly fell from a movable, lightweight, aluminum stairway at the rear of a mobile home owned by the respondents Michael Serino and Renee Serino, sustaining personal injuries. This action was commenced, alleging, inter alia, that the respondents were negligent in causing and/or permitting the stairway to become and remain in a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no evidence of a defective condition regarding the stairway (see Rentz v Long Is. Light. Co., 289 AD2d 466; Chaslon v Waldbaum, Inc., 266 AD2d 177; Gok v Star Enter., 262 AD2d 451). Nor was there evidence that they created, or had actual or constructive notice of, an alleged defect (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gok v Star Enter., supra). Further, to the extent the plaintiffs claim that the stairway was defective because it lacked a second handrail, we note that at the time of the accident, the injured plaintiff was carrying a mirror with both of his hands. Thus, the alleged lack of a second handrail was not the proximate cause of his fall (see Chaslon v Waldbaum, Inc., supra). The plaintiffs' submissions failed to raise any triable issues of fact.
In addition, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code applied to the premises, and did not establish violations of the cited sections thereof. Conclusory statements by the plaintiffs' counsel were insufficient to defeat the respondents' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).
A motion for leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable justification as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the prior motion. The plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coccia v. Liotti
...21 A.D.3d 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457; Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 19 A.D.3d 391, 799 N.Y.S.2d 522; Daria v. Beacon Capital Co., 299 A.D.2d 312, 313, 749 N.Y.S.2d 79). In the order entered July 9, 2008, the Supreme Court also denied the plaintiff's motion for renewal and reargum......
-
Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs.
...94 A.D.3d at 1040, 943 N.Y.S.2d 169;Del Bene v. Frank C. Perry, DDS, P.C., 83 A.D.3d 771, 772, 921 N.Y.S.2d 150;Daria v. Beacon Capital Co., 299 A.D.2d 312, 749 N.Y.S.2d 79;Malik v. Campbell, 289 A.D.2d 540, 735 N.Y.S.2d 793). Here, the action was never formally dismissed, as the calendar p......
-
Demarquez v. Gallo
...the motion for leave to renew ( see Del Bene v. Frank C. Perry, DDS, P.C., 83 A.D.3d 771, 772, 921 N.Y.S.2d 150; Daria v. Beacon Capital Co., 299 A.D.2d 312, 749 N.Y.S.2d 79; Malik v. Campbell, 289 A.D.2d 540, 735 N.Y.S.2d 793). In addition, upon renewal, the Supreme Court should have grant......
-
Diaz v. Combe Inc.
... ... the products, as she is the co-CEO of the company ... Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that Dr. Rao's testimony ... Estate, 12 A.D.3d 496 [2d Dept. 2004]; Daria v ... Beacon Capital Co., 299 A.D.2d 312 [2d Dept. 2002]) ... ...