Georgiou v. 32–42 Broadway Llc

• Decision Date: 24 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 606,920 N.Y.S.2d 36,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02133
• Parties: Nicholas GEORGIOU, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.32–42 BROADWAY LLC, et al., Defendants,Colgate Scaffolding Corp., et al., Defendants–Appellants.[And a Third Party Action].
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

82 A.D.3d 606

920 N.Y.S.2d 36

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02133

Nicholas GEORGIOU, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.32–42 BROADWAY LLC, et al., Defendants,Colgate Scaffolding Corp., et al., Defendants–Appellants.[And a Third Party Action].

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

March 24, 2011.

French & Casey, LLP, New York (Joseph A. French of counsel), for appellants.Richard J. Katz, LLP, New York (Jonathan A. Rapport of counsel), for respondent.MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Maryann Brigantti–Hughes, J.), entered October 2, 2009, which, in an action for personal injury sustained in a slip and fall in the vestibule of a restaurant, the entranceway to which was under a sidewalk bridge erected by defendants-appellants, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against defendants-appellants.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants-appellants (collectively referred to as “Colgate”) created a hazardous condition by constructing a sidewalk bridge that allowed rain water to stream down its roof and enter the vestibule of the restaurant. colgate made a prima facie showing that it did not create, nor did it have notice of, the slippery condition. Colgate submitted evidence that it was required to erect a sidewalk scaffold bridge and that the bridge was not intended to be waterproof. Furthermore, Colgate did not receive any complaints about water flowing from the sidewalk bridge into the vestibule area. Colgate also demonstrated that it was not required by statute or contract to provide for water drainage.

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat Colgate's prima facie showing. In opining that the sidewalk bridge was defectively designed, plaintiff's expert did not specify any accepted industry standards or practices that were violated by Colgate ( see Jones v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 706, 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2006] ). The record does not support the expert's conclusion that Colgate violated New York City Administrative Code §§ 27–1021(b)(7)(a), 27–1009(a), and 27–1018(a), as plaintiff was not injured by construction work, and wetness on outdoor walkways does not constitute a hazardous condition ( see McGuire v. 3901...