Hawkins v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 20 December 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 155192/2016
• Citation: 2019 NY Slip Op 33776 (U)
• Parties: BEVERLY HAWKINS, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2019 NY Slip Op 33776(U)

BEVERLY HAWKINS, Plaintiff
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant

Index No. 155192/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46

RECEIVED: January 2, 2020
December 20, 2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 107

DECISION AND ORDER

LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.:

Plaintiff sues for injury to her finger on her right hand November 9, 2015, when she attempted to pull open a door exiting defendant's management office for its housing development at 250 Madison Street, New York County, and the old, heavy, steel door stuck shut. She pulled on the door handle and did not turn the door knob. Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b).

I. DEFENDANT'S PRIMA FACIE DEFENSE

Gail Farquharson testified at her deposition that she worked in the management office, was there when plaintiff was injured, regularly assisted residents of the housing development like plaintiff who visited the office, and sent orders for repairs to defendant's maintenance department. Therefore she used the door regularly and was familiar with caretakers checking the door daily to ensure access to and egress from the office and with any orders to repair the door. Farquharson testified that she never received any complaints about opening the door or encountered any

Page 2

difficulty herself opening the door, but when exiting the office it was necessary to turn the door knob to open the door.

Patrick Credle testified at his deposition that he was defendant's janitorial caretaker at 250 Madison Street in November 2015 and before then. He, too, used the door regularly and never received any complaints about opening the door or encountered any difficulty himself opening the door, but he was unfamiliar with any maintenance or repairs of the door.

Maintenance worker Cecilio Guzman, however, inspected the door approximately five months before plaintiff's injury pursuant to a work order generated in response to a report that the key in the lock to the door was not functioning. He testified at his deposition that the key cylinder needed repinning, but the need for this repair did not impair the functioning of the door, which opened easily, without extraordinary pressure when unlocked. The evidence does not reveal whether any subsequent repair was effected to the key cylinder that may have affected the opening of the door.

Defendant also presents the affidavit of an engineer who inspected the door January 15, 2019, but absent any evidence that the door was in the same condition then as it was November 9, 2015, this affidavit is useless except to the extent that the engineer comments on other first hand witnesses' testimony. Serrano v. TED Gen. Contr., 157 A.D.3d 474, 474 (1st Dep't 2018); Santana v. New York York City Hous, Auth., 128 A.D.3d 564, 565 (1st Dep't 2015); Green v. Gracie Muse Rest. Corp., 105 A.D.3d

Page 3

578, 579 (1st Dep't 2013); Alston v. Zabar's & Co., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 553, 553 (1st Dep't 2012). Nevertheless, defendant's maintenance worker thoroughly inspected the door and door frame five months before plaintiff's injury and defendant's two other employees, both with responsibilities to report or initiate building repairs whenever needed, used the door daily during the five...