CARRION v. 350 52 SOUTH FOURTH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION (2022)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Maria CARRION, appellant, v. 350–52 SOUTH FOURTH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
Decided: November 02, 2022
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
Zucker & Regev, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Gary A. Zucker and Daniel B. Rubin of counsel), for appellant. Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady, LLP, Garden City, NY (Erin N. Mackin of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated September 19, 2019. The order granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on water that had accumulated on the bathroom floor of her apartment due to a leaking toilet. The apartment is located in a residential cooperative building owned by the defendant 350–52 South Fourth Street Housing Development Fund Corporation and managed by the defendant Del Mar Management, LLC. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the apartment was owned by the plaintiff, and thus, the defendants were not responsible for repairing the alleged defective condition. In an order dated September 19, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion raised triable issues of fact regarding ownership of the apartment (see Sarvis v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 854, 855, 941 N.Y.S.2d 866; Brosnan v. Town of New Windsor, 57 A.D.3d 468, 468, 869 N.Y.S.2d 176; Simmons v. Elmcrest Homeowners’ Assn., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 447, 448, 783 N.Y.S.2d 384).
In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be reached.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.