Graham v. New York City Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 05 July 2007
• Docket Number: 607.
• Parties: EARLENE GRAHAM et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

42 A.D.3d 323

839 N.Y.S.2d 738

2007 NY Slip Op 05839

EARLENE GRAHAM et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.

607.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided July 5, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.),

entered on or about June 8, 2006, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs sustained injury during a fire in the Grahams' apartment alleged to have resulted from "defective, inadequate, insufficient and improper electrical wiring, improperly installed and repaired electrical outlets, smoke detectors and other fire safety devices, including but not limited to self closing doors." Plaintiffs assert that the fire originated in an electrical outlet in the vicinity of a sofa. Defendant contends that it was caused by careless smoking by James Jeter, who used the couch for sleeping. Without identifying any issue precluding summary judgment, Supreme Court denied defendant's motion, stating in conclusory fashion that "material issues of fact exist and should be resolved by a jury."

The Fire Department's investigation determined that "the fire originated in "an accumulation of paper products on the living room floor and then extended to the upholstery of the adjacent couch." The fire marshal further noted "numerous ash trays with copious quantities of butts found in several rooms," concluding, "Case status—closed—accidental fire." He found "no evidence to suggest that the ignition source for this fire was electrical in origin."

While the record indicates that plaintiffs had complained about nonfunctioning electrical outlets in the apartment, in the absence of evidence that the building's wiring contributed to the fire's origin, such complaints do not constitute notice of the defective condition that resulted in injury and are insufficient to defeat defendant's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the Fire Department's analysis (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Indeed, plaintiffs' engineering expert agreed that the fire "did not involve any of the permanent apartment wiring in the wall." Likewise, plaintiffs' allegation that the self-closing mechanism did not fully close the apartment door is not pertinent in the absence of any...