Hagan v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 07 November 2018
• Docket Number: Index No. 10279/11,2016–08607
• Citation: 166 A.D.3d 590,87 N.Y.S.3d 325
• Parties: Samuel L. HAGAN, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Berkshire Equity, LLC, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 590

87 N.Y.S.3d 325

Samuel L. HAGAN, et al., Respondents,

v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant,Berkshire Equity, LLC, et al., Appellants.

2016–08607

Index No. 10279/11

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

Argued - October 2, 2018

November 7, 2018

Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (Douglas A. Gingold of counsel), for appellant Berkshire Equity, LLC.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stewart G. Milch and Paul Tarr of counsel), for appellant Temco Service Industries, Inc.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Berkshire Equity, LLC, appeals, and the defendant Temco Service Industries, Inc., separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated May 20, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from by the defendant Berkshire Equity, LLC, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims insofar as asserted against it, and insofar as appealed from by the defendant Temco Service Industries, Inc., denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants Berkshire Equity, LLC, and Temco Service Industries, Inc., appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion of the defendant Berkshire Equity, LLC, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims insofar as asserted against it is granted, and the motion of the defendant Temco Service Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff Samuel L. Hagan (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly slipped on a puddle of pinkish liquid on the ground floor of a Brooklyn courthouse and sustained personal injuries. The plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced an action against, among others, the defendant Berkshire Equity, LLC (hereinafter Berkshire), which owned the premises, and a separate action against the defendant Temco Service Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Temco), which had a cleaning services contract with a nonparty that was a holding company of Berkshire. The two actions were subsequently consolidated. Berkshire moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims insofar as asserted against it, contending that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence. Temco separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The Supreme Court denied both motions. Berkshire and Temco separately appeal.

With respect to Berkshire's motion, in a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Adamson v. Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 151 A.D.3d 913, 914, 58 N.Y.S.3d 100 ; Robustelli v. Westchester Towers Owners Corp., 128 A.D.3d 938, 939, 8 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; Guzman v. Jewish Bd. of Family & Children's Servs., Inc., 103 A.D.3d 776, 777, 960 N.Y.S.2d 151 ; Kramer v. SBR & C, 62 A.D.3d 667, 669, 879 N.Y.S.2d 158 ). "To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendant] to discover and remedy it" ( Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 ).

Here, the evidence submitted by Berkshire in support of its motion, including the transcript of the plaintiff's deposition testimony, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that Berkshire did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient period of time to have discovered and remedied it (see Robustelli v. Westchester Towers Owners Corp., 128 A.D.3d at 939, 8 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; Guzman v. Jewish Bd. of Family & Children's Servs., Inc., 103 A.D.3d at 777, 960 N.Y.S.2d 151 ; Kramer v. SBR & C, 62 A.D.3d at 669, 879 N.Y.S.2d 158 ). The plaintiff testified that when he traversed the accident site approximately 20 minutes before the incident, he did not see the condition that had caused him to slip. In...