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.
Gerard Palionis, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jakobson Properties, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered March 4, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this case, defendants owed no duty, statutory or otherwise, to plaintiff to provide continuous illumination in the stairway upon which plaintiff slipped during the ongoing blackout resulting from Hurricane Sandy (see e.g. Kopsachilis v. 130 E. 18 Owners Corp., 11 NY3d 512 [2008]; Viera v. Riverbay Corp., 44 AD3d 577 [1st Dept 2007] ). Plaintiff's reliance on Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (115 A.D.2d 34 [1st Dept 1986], lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 604 [1986] ), is misplaced as the defendant in Goldstein created a dangerous situation by encouraging the tenants to use the unlighted stairways to fetch water from the fire hydrant that the building superintendent had opened up for them. Here, nothing in the record shows that defendants encouraged plaintiff or other tenants to use the unlighted stairs in any way. To the extent plaintiff is arguing that defendants voluntarily assumed a duty of care by taking affirmative acts to alleviate the hazardous condition, and that he relied on such acts to his detriment, the record does not demonstrate that he relied on the actions taken by defendants in deciding to use the stairs to leave the building (see Heard v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 72–73 [1993]; Nallan v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 523 [1980] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5503
Decided: January 23, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
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)