From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grottano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04357

Argued March 20, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp., and Elm Management Associates, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated March 14, 2002, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Gould Cimino, New York, N.Y. (Eugene Guarneri of counsel), for appellants.

Friedman and Simon, Jericho, N.Y. (Lauren B. Christofano of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of a slip and fall on spilled liquid while descending the stairs between the fourth and fifth floors of the high-rise apartment building in which she is a tenant. The building allegedly is owned by the defendant City of New York, and managed and maintained by the appellants.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants demonstrated, prima facie, that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the spilled liquid that allegedly caused the plaintiff's fall (see Blaszczyk v. Ricco, 266 A.D.2d 491). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. The wholly conclusory affidavit of a resident of a third-floor apartment who claimed to have made "numerous verbal complaints" about various unsanitary conditions on the stairs failed to establish the existence of a specific recurring condition, and was legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused the plaintiff's fall (see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969; Gloria v. MGM Emerald Enters., 298 A.D.2d 355, 356).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grottano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Grottano v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MAUREEN GROTTANO, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, DAYTON BEACH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 795

Citing Cases

Ulu v. ITT Sheraton Corp.

Moreover, the defendants established that, in connection with the conference which the plaintiff attended,…

Kobiashvilli v. Hill

On the question of a recurring condition, the plaintiffs bore the burden of submitting evidence that the…