BUNN v. The New York City Transportation Authority, et al., Defendants. (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered January 10, 2019, which granted the motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when a bus stop sign became dislodged from its metal post and struck him in the head. The City demonstrated that it lacked prior written notice of a defective condition in the bus stop sign through a search of records which revealed no complaints (Administrative Code of City of New York § 7–201[c][2]; see Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873 [2008]; Harvey v. Henry 85 LLC, 171 A.D.3d 531, 532, 98 N.Y.S.3d 75 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 911, 107 N.Y.S.3d 269, 131 N.E.3d 278 [2019]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City created a defective condition within the meaning of the exception to the prior written notice requirement (see Yarborough at 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873; Harvish v. City of Saratoga Springs, 172 A.D.3d 1503, 1504, 99 N.Y.S.3d 472 [3d Dept. 2019]). The sign had been installed approximately seven months before the accident, but no complaints had been received and plaintiff did not notice any defect. Plaintiff's speculation that the installation of the sign could have resulted in an immediately apparent defect is insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see Harvish at 1504, 99 N.Y.S.3d 472).

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable under the circumstances. An injured plaintiff seeking to apply res ipsa loquitur must establish, among other things, that the accident was caused by an instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control (see Ebanks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 70 N.Y.2d 621, 623, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 512 N.E.2d 297 [1987]). Here, the alleged defect in the sign could have been caused by any number of factors, including vandalism and wind/weather conditions, and thus, the City lacked exclusive control (see e.g. Pintor v. 122 Water Realty, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 449, 451, 933 N.Y.S.2d 679 [1st Dept. 2011]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.