From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nativo v. Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 27, 2021
190 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2019-13380 Index No. 505589/18

01-27-2021

Joseph NATIVO, respondent, v. DRAGONETTI BROTHERS LANDSCAPING NURSERY & FLORIST, INC., appellant, et al., defendant.

Galvano & Xanthankis, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Constantine A. Pantazis of counsel), for appellant. Kuharski, Levitz & Giovinazzo, Staten Island, N.Y. (Lonny R. Levitz of counsel), for respondent.


Galvano & Xanthankis, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Constantine A. Pantazis of counsel), for appellant.

Kuharski, Levitz & Giovinazzo, Staten Island, N.Y. (Lonny R. Levitz of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), dated October 23, 2019. The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he tripped on a raised catch basin. He commenced this personal injury action against, among others, the defendant Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc. (hereinafter Dragonetti Landscaping), a contractor, alleging that it was negligent in creating the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the accident. Dragonetti Landscaping moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and Dragonetti Landscaping appeals.

In a trip-and-fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall (see Bishop v. Pennsylvania Ave. Mgt., LLC, 183 A.D.3d 685, 687, 123 N.Y.S.3d 685 ; Baldasano v. Long Is. Univ., 143 A.D.3d 933, 933, 40 N.Y.S.3d 175 ; Davis v. Sutton, 136 A.D.3d 731, 732, 26 N.Y.S.3d 100 ). A plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant's negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries would be based on speculation (see Chang v. Marmon Enters., Inc., 172 A.D.3d 678, 679, 99 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; Palahnuk v. Tiro Rest. Corp., 116 A.D.3d 748, 749, 983 N.Y.S.2d 603 ). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, Dragonetti Landscaping failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall (see Flanagan v. Town of Huntington, 155 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 64 N.Y.S.3d 590 ). In support of its motion, Dragonetti Landscaping submitted a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition testimony, at which he testified that the uneven condition of the catch basin was the cause of his fall and identified the condition in a photograph which, according to his testimony, depicted the area at the time of the accident (see Zorin v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 1116, 1117, 28 N.Y.S.3d 116 ).

Moreover, a contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk (see Brown v. Welsbach Corp., 301 N.Y.202, 205, 93 N.E.2d 640 ; Huerta v. 2147 Second Ave., LLC, 129 A.D.3d 668, 669, 10 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; see also Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., Inc. , 98 N.Y.2d 136, 141, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 ). Here, Dragonetti Landscaping failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it did not create or cause the allegedly dangerous condition over which the plaintiff tripped and fell (see Losito v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 854, 855, 833 N.Y.S.2d 564 ).

Dragonetti Landscaping also failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged uneven condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 52, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Dragonetti Landscaping's motion.

MASTRO, A.P.J., AUSTIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nativo v. Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 27, 2021
190 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Nativo v. Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Joseph Nativo, respondent, v. Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery …

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jan 27, 2021

Citations

190 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
190 A.D.3d 981
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 436

Citing Cases

Shvyetsov v. 1900 Newkirk Ave.

"Landowners generally owe a duty of care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, and are…

Shepard v. Thamar Corp.

As an initial matter, defendants' contention that plaintiff does not know what caused her fall is without…