Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Construction, Inc.
| Citation | 755 N.Y.S.2d 435,303 A.D.2d 482 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 10 March 2003 |
| Parties | JOHN PRZYBYSZEWSKI, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>WONDER WORKS CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs, those branches of the appellants' respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants are granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
The plaintiff fell after stepping onto a rug located in the parking lot of a police precinct where he worked. The evidence indicated that the rug had been placed under a kettle to prevent the tar in that kettle from dripping onto the pavement during a construction project. At his deposition, the plaintiff described his fall as a "freak accident." Moreover, he explicitly denied falling due to any tar, and stated that he neither hit anything on the rug nor slipped on the rug itself. He also admitted that he did not know whether the rug was in any way folded, lumped, or curled up.
The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the separate motions of the defendant Wonder Works Construction, Inc., and the defendant CIP Restoration, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the appellants), which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. We reverse insofar as appealed from.
It is true that whether a certain condition qualifies as dangerous or defective is usually a question of fact for the jury to decide (see e.g. Varrone v Dinaro, 209 AD2d 508 [1994]). However, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous (see Tresgallo v Danica, 286 AD2d 326 [2001]; Varrone v Dinaro, supra).
The appellants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]) by submitting the plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff candidly described his fall as a "freak accident" and failed to pinpoint how the rug he fell on was either dangerous or defective. In response, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial of the action (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Therefore, in addition to granting the remaining defendants' motions for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.M. v. N. Merrick Union Free Sch. Dist.
...972 [2d Dept. 2017] ; Bender v. Cemetery of the Holy Rood , 129 A.D.3d 754 [2d Dept. 2015] ; see also Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., Inc. , 303 A.D.2d 482 [2d Dept. 2003] ). "[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability ‘de......
-
Langgood v. Carrols, LLC
...a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous" (Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., 303 A.D.2d 482, 483, 755 N.Y.S.2d 435 ; see Bishop v. Marsh, 59 A.D.3d 483, 483, 873 N.Y.S.2d 201 ; Mullaney v. Koenig, 21 A.D.3d 939, 939, 801 N.......
-
Witkowski v. Island Trees Pub. Library
...at 560, 792 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; see Rant v. Locust Valley High School, 123 A.D.3d 686, 997 N.Y.S.2d 695 ; Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., 303 A.D.2d 482, 483, 755 N.Y.S.2d 435 ). Here, the appellant met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law......
-
Colini v. Stino, Inc., 2018–10361
...N.Y.S.2d 209 ; Brown–Phifer v. Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 A.D.2d 564, 723 N.Y.S.2d 393 ; see also Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., 303 A.D.2d 482, 483, 755 N.Y.S.2d 435 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, her deposition testimony did not raise a triable issue of fact as t......