Fitzgerald v. Sears, Roebuck and Company
| Decision Date | 18 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-05428. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 03000,17 A.D.3d 522,793 N.Y.S.2d 164 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA FITZGERALD, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries when her foot struck a floor-to-ceiling tiled wall that she encountered upon opening a ladies' room door at the defendant's store. In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The wall in question did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). There was simply no evidence presented by the plaintiff demonstrating that the protruding wall had the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]). The plaintiff's deposition testimony established that the wall was readily visible upon opening the door. Such a wall is precisely the type of claimed hazard that would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer, so as to make a warning superfluous (see Canetti v AMCI, Ltd., 281 AD2d 381 [2001]; Wint v Fulton St. Art Gallery, 263 AD2d 541 [1999]; cf. Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [2004]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert provided no details regarding exact measurements or specific violations of the New York City Building Construction Code. His conclusory belief that the wall violated that code, without more, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (cf. Raimondo v St. Andrew's R.C. Church Socy. of Town of Tonawanda, 247 AD2d 875 [1998]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calderon v. 88-16 N. BLVD, LLC
...733 N.Y.S.2d 537; see also Bohan v. F.R.P. Sheet Metal Contr. Corp., 58 A.D.3d 781, 872 N.Y.S.2d 168; Fitzgerald v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 A.D.3d 522, 523, 793 N.Y.S.2d 164).Since 88–16 did not sustain its prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by ......
-
Swormville Fire Co. v. K2M Architects P.C.
...v. Board of Mgrs. of the Parkchester N. Condominium, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 448, 449, 963 N.Y.S.2d 76 ; Fitzgerald v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 A.D.3d 522, 523, 793 N.Y.S.2d 164 ). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met its initial burden, we nonetheless conclude that defendant raised triable......
-
Today v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
... ... as Assignee of Roydon Pile, Appellant,v.GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.Supreme Court, Appellate Term,2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial ... ...
- Fausto v. City of New York, 2004-03789.