Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC
Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Index No. 503986/15,2017–03107 |
Citation | 159 A.D.3d 1024,72 N.Y.S.3d 568 |
Parties | Josefina ROJAS, respondent, v. 1000 42ND STREET, LLC, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
159 A.D.3d 1024
72 N.Y.S.3d 568
Josefina ROJAS, respondent,
v.
1000 42ND STREET, LLC, appellant.
2017–03107
Index No. 503986/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—December 18, 2017
March 28, 2018
Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant.
Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (John S. Manessis of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin M. Solomon, J.), dated February 17, 2017, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
On September 21, 2014, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a piece of cardboard at the bottom of a staircase in the basement of a multi-tenant residential building in Brooklyn. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendant, the owner of the building.
At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident she was employed by a nonparty to clean the subject building. Her duties included the weekly removal of garbage and material to be recycled from the basement of the building. The plaintiff was engaged in the performance of that task when the accident occurred. When asked what caused her to fall, she explained that "there was a lot of garbage" in the basement, including "cardboard all around."
Where, as here, the plaintiff is a worker whose claim is based upon premises liability, the landowner's duty is to provide the worker with a safe place to work. A landowner "need not guard against hazards inherent in the worker's work, hazards caused by the condition the worker is engaged to repair, or hazards which are readily...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fox v. Starbucks Corp., 19-CV-4650 (AJN)
...or hazards which are readily observed by someone of the worker's age, intelligence, and experience.” Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC, 72 N.Y.S.3d 568, 569 (N.Y.App.Div. 2018). A contrary rule would, for example, “lead inexorably to the absurd conclusion that defendants' duty was to hire a clean......
-
Beaton v. City of New York
...alleged slippery condition (see Itzkowitz v. Valley Natl. Bank Corp., 191 A.D.3d 962, 963, 143 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; Zempoalteca v. Ginsberg, 159 A.D.3d 1024, 70 N.Y.S.3d 389 ; 196 A.D.3d 627 Yassa v. Awad, 117 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 986 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; Lotenberg v. Long Is. R.R., 34 A.D.3d 435, 824 N.......
-
Johnson v. Pawling Central School District
...from nearby areas were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied (see Zempoalteca v Ginsberg, 159 A.D.3d 1024, 1024; Buroker v Country View Estate Condominium Assn., Inc., 54 A.D.3d 795, 795). Moreover, the climatological data was inconsistent and con......
-
Beaton v. City of New York
...storm to remedy the alleged slippery condition (see Itzkowitz v Valley Natl. Bank Corp., 191 A.D.3d 962, 963; Zempoalteca v Ginsberg, 159 A.D.3d 1024; Yassa v Awad, 117 A.D.3d 1037, 1038; Lotenberg v Long Is. R.R., 34 A.D.3d 435). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defend......