Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
TYLER BULLUCK, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. MARYANNE E. FIELDS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a fire at defendant's residence. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to maintain functional, properly placed smoke detectors and in maintaining faulty electrical wiring.
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met her initial burden of establishing that she had installed smoke detectors in the residence (see Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Garvin, 13 NY3d 851, 852; see generally CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562), we conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether those smoke detectors were functioning properly on the night of the fire (see Pierre–Louis v. DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 857, 858; see generally McKnight v. Coppola, 113 AD3d 1087, 1087–1088), and whether “a properly positioned smoke detector would have given adequate warning of fire” to plaintiff (Lein v. Czaplinski, 106 A.D.2d 723, 725). We further conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether the alleged failure of the smoke detectors to function properly caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries (see Hanes v. Narracci, 113 AD3d 1125, 1126; see also Foreman v Coyne Textile Servs. of Buffalo, 284 A.D.2d 912, 912), and whether the fire was the result of defendant's negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition at her residence, i.e., faulty electrical wiring in the room where the fire originated (see generally New York Mun. Ins. Reciprocal v Casella Constr., Inc., 105 AD3d 1440, 1441). Finally, the court properly declined to consider contentions raised by defendant for the first time in her reply papers (see Jackson v. Vatter, 121 AD3d 1588, 1589).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 15–00269
Decided: October 09, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)