VERMA v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2009)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Rajat VERMA, etc., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.

Decided: May 19, 2009

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent City of New York. Paganini, Gambeski, Cioci, Cusumano & Farole, Lake Success, N.Y. (John J. Kearney of counsel), for respondent Queens Borough Public Library.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered June 11, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Queens Borough Public Library, and that branch of cross motion of the defendant City of New York, which were for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an outdoor staircase of a branch of the defendant Queens Borough Public Library while he was exiting the building. At the time of the accident, the staircase was wet due to an earlier rainstorm.

On their motions, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the accident did not occur as a result of a dangerous or defective condition on the staircase, and that, in any event, they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous or defective condition on the staircase (see Morgan v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 412, 872 N.Y.S.2d 543; Richardson v. Campanelli, 297 A.D.2d 794, 748 N.Y.S.2d 31; Sadowsky v. 2175 Wantagh Ave. Corp., 281 A.D.2d 407, 721 N.Y.S.2d 665; King v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 354, 698 N.Y.S.2d 328).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gentles v. New York City Tr. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 388, 389, 712 N.Y.S.2d 875). The findings of the plaintiff's expert were conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Palermo v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 20 A.D.3d 516, 799 N.Y.S.2d 248; Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach 605, 298 A.D.2d 571, 749 N.Y.S.2d 543).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network