Brewer v Stonehill & Taylor Architects

Brewer v Stonehill & Taylor Architects 2012 NY Slip Op 01746 Decided on March 8, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 8, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz, Román, JJ.
7039 107477/08

[*1]Jeffery Brewer, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Stonehill & Taylor Architects, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, R.P. Brennan, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.




Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Howard R.
Cohen of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky
of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola (Corey J. Pugliese of counsel),
for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 30, 2011, which denied defendants Stonehill & Taylor Architects' and R. P. Brennan's motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants' favor dismissing the complaint.

Defendants established prima facie that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition that precipitated plaintiff's injuries, i.e., a piece of molding on the floor near the freight elevator, or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Smith v Costco Wholesale Corp., 50 AD3d 499, 500 [2008]). Stonehill's president and Brennan's project manager both testified that Brennan completed the work it had been hired by Stonehill to do on December 13, 2007, about two weeks before plaintiff's accident, and that an inspection performed at that time found no loose molding or other material on the premises. Stonehill's president was present on the day of plaintiff's accident and observed nothing on the floor near the freight elevator. Indeed, plaintiff himself had been working in the area for 1½ hours before he fell, and it was only after the accident that he saw the molding for the first time. There is no evidence in the record as to how long the molding had been there. [*2]

Plaintiff's testimony that he saw workers in the area of the freight elevator before his accident but did not know who they were or what they were doing is insufficient to defeat defendants' motions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2012

CLERK