Sarg v Twelfth St. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sarg v Twelfth St. Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 30339(U) February 9, 2012 Supr Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102278/09 Judge: Louis B. York Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. lNED ON 211412012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY The following papers, numbered 1 t o were read on this motion tolfor PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Exhibits Replying Affidavits u Cross-Motion: ) ( y e s NO Upon the foregoing papers, It is ordered that this motion nl - I w u K z w U LJNFILED JUDGMENT Thls-judgmenthas not been entered by the County clerk and notice of entry cannot be served based hereon. To obtein entry, counsel or authorized representative must amear in person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (Room 141B). I bzt I Check one: ) y' FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: r! 0 SUBMIT ORDER/JUDG. *.v -i , * ,l L /Sc * d NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DO NOT POST REFERENCE SETTLE ORDER /JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COUR T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 3 X _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JR . , M. D., MICHAEJJ SALIC;, P l a i n t i ¬ f I N D E X NO. 102278/09 Defendants. X _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ - LOUIS YORX, J.: Tn t h i s p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n , d e f e n d a n t T w e l f t h S t r e e t C o r p o r a t i o n moves ¬ o r summary j u d q m e n t , d i s m i s s i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d a n y cross c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t . Cohcn, the landlord, I n r e s p o n s e , d e f e n d a n t Faya S . c r o s s moves for summary j u d g m e n t , d i s m i s s i n g p l a i n t i f f s complaint. P l a i . n t i f f Michael Sarg, J r . opposes b o t h m o t i o n s a n d cross moves f o r a d e p o s i t i o n of Faya S. C o h e n . Background D e f e n d a n t Faya S Cohen ( M s . Cohen ) 1s the owner o f Lhe p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d a t 2 2 5 West 12 S t r e e t , N e w Y o r k , New York ( t h c property ) . J C Dwight Inc. i s Lhe m a n a g i n g a g e n t . On January 1 3 , 1 9 9 9 the m a n a q i n q a q c n t l e a s e d t h c f i r s t f l o o r o f the p r o p e r i y t o d e f e n d a n t T w e l f t h S t r e e t Corp ( Twelfth Street ) that. does b u s i n e s s a s t h e V i l l a g e Den ( t le r e s t a u r a n t ) . Plaii?t.iff W;IS a l l e g e d l y i n j u r e d on August 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 a t 1 [* 3] Plaintiff cl.aims t h a t the p l a s t - i c chair that he sat in moved Lo t h e right, when he st.ood up to retrieve his wall-et from his r i q h t - hip pocket, at the end of t h e meal.. Ellaintiff subsequently initiated this action against both the tenant a n d the landlord of the prcmises, alleging that they negligently permitted the lightweight f l i m s y plastic chairs to be part of the outdoor area of the restaurant and negligently set up the tables a n d chairs, creating a hazardous and trap-like condition , a n d failed to warn plaintiff o f the danger (see, Verified Bj11 of Particulars, dated J u l y 13, 2010, annexed Lo Affirmation of Warren I Harris (Harris A f f . ) dated J u l y 11, 2011, Ex B, and 1 a n d l . o r d s negligence caused him to suffer severe, permanent: personal injuries from which he continues to suffer pai.n. Discussion The landlord seeks summary judgmcnt predicated o 1 thc r argument that she h a s no duty of care to plaintiff to rr1aintai.r) the non-structural p o r t i o n of the premises because she is an o u t of-possession landlord with a limited right of r-e-entry. She maintains that: thc 1 ease demonstrates that she relj riquished control of the premises and placed responsibility f o r every d a y maint-enance a n d repairs on the tenant. 2 [* 4] The proponent: of a motion f o r summary judgment makes ;$ prima f a c i e showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by advancing sufficient evidentiary proof in admissib1.e form 1.0 demonstrate the absence of any material. issues of Lact (see CPLli 3212[b]; Z u c k e r m a n v City of N c w Y o r k , 49 N Y Z d 557, 562 [19801; Silverrriari v Perlbindcr, 307 AD2d 230 [13t Dept 20033; T h o m a s v Holzberg, 300 AD2d 1 0 , l l [lLTt 20021). Dept A par-Ly c a n prove a p r i m f a c i e entitlement to summary judgment through the affirmation of its attorney based upon documentary evidence Dept (Prudential S e c u r i t i e s I I I C . , v Rovello, 262 A D 2 d 172 [ l S t 1.9991) . To establish a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiff must prove that the defendants owed him a duty of care, arid breached t h a t duty, and that the breach proximately caused her injury (see Solomon v C j . t y of N e w York, 66 N Y 2 d 1026, 102'7 [1985]; Wayburn v M ~ 3 d i s o n Land L t d . P a r t n e r s h i p , 282 A D 2 d 301, 302 [l''t.Dept 20011). Where a defendant moves f o r summary judgment, it has the burden in the first instance to establish, tis a matter of law, t h a t eit:her it did not c r e a t e the dangerous condition which caused the accident or that it did not have actual or constructi-ve n o t i c e of the condition for s u c h a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected ( J u a r e z v Wavecrest Mgt l ' e a m , 88 NY2d 628,646 [1.996] Joachiin v IS24 C h u r c h A v e . , ; 3 I I ' I C , , 12 A D 3 d 409, 410 [2"".' [* 5] Dept 20041; G i i i f - f r i d a v Metro N. C o m m u t ~ rR.R. Co., 279 A D 2 d 403, 404 11"'Dept 20011). An out of possession landlord is gcncrally riot li a b l c for a third parties' injuries on the premises uinless it had notice of the defect and contractually consented to be responsible for maintenance or to make repairs ( V e l a z q u e z v T y l e r Graphics, 214 A D 2 d 189 [Y' Dept 19951). Notice can also be constructive, when the landlord reserves a right to reenter under the terms 01 the lease, for the purpose of inspection and repair arid specific statutory violation exists (Gomez v 192 east 1 5 I F r Street Associates, LP, 26 AD3d 276 [ l s tDept 20061). However, in that case, only a significant structural or design defect that is contrary t.o a specific statutory safety provision will support the imposition of liability against the l a n d l o r d (see Reyes v Mor-ton W i l l i a m s A s s o c i a L e d Supermarkets, Inc., 50 AD3d 496, 497 [lst Dept 20081); see also Juarez v Wavccrcst, 88 N Y 2 d 6 2 8 , 647 [1996]; Gzizman v H a v e n Plaza, 69 N Y 2 d 559, 566-567 [1987]). Breach of a general duty to keep premises in good repair pursuant to Administrative Code Sections 27-127 and 27-128 or Multiple Dwelling T a 78 alone are not enough (see B o a t e n g v Four Plus ,w C o r p . , 22 A D 3 d 323 [P' Dept 20051 ; J a v i e r v L u d i n , 293 A D 2 d 440 [2""DepL 20021). The express and unambiguous language of the lease submit tketl by thc! l a n d l o r d c 1 . e a r l . y establishcs that it is an o u t . - o f possession laridl.ord, with limited control over the premiscs (see 4 [* 6] Lease, (annexed t o H a r r i s A f f . it i s the tenant-rest:aurant E). as F x : The lease i n d i c a t . e s t h a t . t h a t h a s control. 01 a n d i s r e s p o n s i h 1 . e for m a i . n t a i . n i rig t h e p r e m i s e s , i n c l u d i n g o b t a i n i n g a l l p e r m i t s for t.he t h e a d j a c e n t s i d e w a l k s u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 ( s e e a l s o , A ¬ E i r r n a t . i o n of Moshe Herman J C Dwight, T,andlord s t h a t the [Landlord] Ex G ) . ... , e m p l o y e e o f managing agent, A r t i c l e 13 o f t h e lease p r o v j - d e s s h a l l have t h e r i g h t (but: s h a l l n o t h e o b l i g a h e d ) r e - e n t e r t h e d e m i s e d p r e m i s e s i n a n y c m e r g e n c y at: a n y t i m e , and, a t o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s , make s u c h r e p a i - r s ..- t o cxarni.ne t h e same and t o a s [ t h e L a n d l o r d ] may deem n c c c s s a r y - -. . l hus, n o t h i n g i n A r t i c l e 1 3 e n t i t l e d Access imposes on t h e l a n d l o r d a n y a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n t h e p r e m i s e s o r t o make r e p a i r s . The p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e t e n a n t have f a i l e d t o s u b m i t a n y documentary e v i d e n c e or an a f f i d a v i t from i t s r e p r e s e n t a t - i v e s t h a t c o n f l i c k s w i t h t h e clear t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e r e g a r d i n g t h k landlord s l i m i t e d rj.ght of re-entry 224 A D 2 d 478 [2d Dept 19961). ( s e e Doyle v B.3 Deli, In(:., The p l a i n t i f f s c o u n s c l c l a i m s t h a t t h e l a n d l o r d s motion is p r e m a t u r e b e c a u s e a l L h o u g h t h e l a n d l o r d p r o d u c e d i t s superiritericlerit for d e p o s i t i o n , d e f e n d a n t Faya S. Cohen, i n d i v i d u a l l y , was n e v c r p r o d u c e d . However, d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y of t h e j . n d i v i . d u a 1 l a n d l o r d i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s u n n e c e s s a r y to e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e l a n d l o r d i s a r i o u t - o f possessinn landlord, s i n c e t h e l e a s e t e r m s , a t t a c h e d to t h e 5 If [* 7] 1 . a n d l o r d counseJ. s affirmation, a r e clear (see DeLeon v Port A u t h o r i t y of N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s ? y , 306 A D 2 d 146 [lst Dept 20031 ) . The out-oi-possession landlord herein h a s also madc a p r i m a facie showing that plaintiff s injuries were not caused by any significant s t r u c t - u r a l or design de ¬ect in viol.ation of a specific safcty code so as to render any limited right to reenter arid inspect in the lease a basis f o r liability. Plaintiff s bill of particulars only alleges that the deferidants were on notice t . h a t the chair he sat in was flimsy , or that it. was p o o r l y constructed arid had short legs and the restaurant s o u t d o o r seating was crowded , unsafe and hazardous and trap-li-ke in violation of New York State and New York City rules and regulati.oris without specificity (see, Plaintiff s Ex C, annexed to Affidavit of Cindy A. Moonsammy dated September 20, 2011) . Iri addition, p l . a i n L i f f s own deposition t e s t . i m o n y , confirms that plaintiff was caused to fall because the chair in which he was sitting was [llightweiqht arid flimsy and as a r e s u l t , the chair moved to the right, unbeknownst to me, and I sat down into an area where there was no c h a i r and I e l l o n t o the concrete cement floor ( P l a i . n t _ i i f s deposition at 35, annexed to Defendant s Cross Motion as Ex H). The burdcn has n o w shif-ted to plaintiff to lay bare its p r o o f and demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of 6 [* 8] qenuine, not feigned, i s s u e s of fact, since sham or frivolous issues will not preclude summary relief ( K o r n f e l d v NRX Tech., I I I C . , 93 ALI2d 7 72 [l Dept 19831, a f f d 62 NY2d 686 [19841). The court rejects t.he contention by expert engineer Stanley k e i n in his affidavit dated September 19, 20ll., that a genuine issue of fact cxists as to whcther there was a significant structural defect 011 the premises that caused plaintiff s injury, based upon the a s s e r t t i o n that it appears that the a r e a where the c h a i . r s were placed wcre sloped . so1.e evidenc:e An expert s affidavit proffered a s the t o defeat summary judgment must contair-1sufficient factual allcqations to demonstrate that the conclusions it contains are more than mere speculation a n d w o i i l d , if offered at t r i a l , support a verdict in the proponent s favor (see Romano v S t a n l e y , 90 NY2d 444 [1997]). Here, Fei.n s assertion that [aln examination rcvcalcd that the walkway on which t h e chairs were placed was not level but was sloped (Fein Affidavit, annexed to Plaintiff s opposition, Ex A), assumes that the chair was placcd on a sloped area by the curb, a f a c t n o t supported by the record and in fact directly contradicted by plaintiff s testimony (Plaintiff s dep at 77, annexed to Landlord s Ex H, where he states that the outside area was essential-ly E l a L ) and that only the area by the curb had a slope (see C i l l o v R e s j e f a l . C o r p . , 16 AD3d 339 [13t Dept 20O51, where a party relics expert, t h e expcrt cannot a s s u m e material facts that are 7 01-1 an [* 9] unsupported) . M o r e o v e r , t h e shadowy s e m b l a n c e of a n i s s u e regarding an a s s e r t e d d e f e c t i v e s l o p e w i l l n o t d e f e a t Lhe ( M R i B r o a d w a y R c n t a l , l nc v United m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t S t a t e s M i r i e r a l Products C o . 92 NY2d 4 2 3 , 242 AD2d 440 [lLJt- 3 9 9 7 1 Dept , aff d, [11198]), s i n c e e v e n i f t h e c h a i r was on the s l o p e d a r e a , F e i n s a f f i d a v i t p r o v i d e s no d a t a a s t o t h e d e g r e e of t h e p u r p o r t e d s l o p e o r t h a t - a n y specific c o d e was v i o l a t e d b y the 1 - a n d l o r d and thus, the a f f i d a v i t i s c o n c l u s o r y a n d i s o f no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e (G.reen v N e w Y o r k City l l o u s i n g A u t h o r i ty, 8 1 Ad3d 8 9 0 [2 - Dept- 2 0 1 1 1 ) . T n l i q h t of p l a i n t i f f s f a i l u r e t;o p r o v i d e a n y a f f i r m a t i v e proof t o d e m o n s t r a t e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t of n e g l i g e n c e or1 behalf o f the l a n d l o r d , t h e l a n d l o r d s motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f 1 i s g r a n t - e d . The t e n a n t a l s o met i t s prjma f a c i e burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e i t m a i n t a i n e d t h e p r - e m i s e s i n a. r e a s o n a b l y safe condiLion and t h e r e i s a n absence of an i s s u e t h a t it e i t h e r c r e a t e d a d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i - o n on t h e p r e m i s e s o r t h a t , i t f a i l e d t o remedy o n e , d e s p i t e a c t u a l or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c c (see, A a g u s a v Lincoln C e n t e r Lor t h e P e r f o r m i n g A r t s , Inc., 39 AD3d 2 9 4 [l: t Dept 2 0 0 7 1 ; Ryan v KRT P r o p e r t y H o ~ d i n g s , LLC, e t al., 4 5 AD3d 6 6 3 [ 2 d Dcpt 2 0 0 7 1 ) . Yhc t e n a n t s m o t i o n i s p r e d i c a t e d on 1.he argumerit t h a t the p r e m i s e s were r e a s o n a b l y m a i n t a i n e d d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y from r e s t a u r a n t rriariager, d a t c d Septernber 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 , (see k aola Dossman, aririexed t o N o t i c e o f C r o s s Mot.ion, Ex 8 [* 10] D) and that the evidence from p l a i i n t i ff himself dernonstrates t h d t there was n o t a trap-like c o n d i t i . o n or dangerous defect in the premiscs (scc plaintiff s d e p o s i L i o n testimony dated January 26, 201.1, annexed to Cross Motion, as Ex H) . According to plaintiff s Lestimony, hc walked into the restaurant on the d a y 01 the accident with a cane and had a brace or1 h i s l e f t leg. He decided to walk outside to the restaurant s patio to have l u n c h as he had done approximately 10 t-imes prior to A u g u s t : 2008 (Plaintiff s dcp p 29). Plaintiff did not have any trouble with any of the chairs or tables nor did he make any carnp1,aints about- them prior to the date of the accident ( . i d . ) Plaintiff testified that he stood up to retrieve his wallet and the lightweight flimsy chair moved to the right (p 35). He did r i o t see the chair- move to the right or hear anything prior to t - h e accident ( p 3 7 ) . He did not see the chair before he attempted to sit down dntl did n o t pay attention to where the chair was ( p 41). He did not remember moving the chair when standing up to get his wallet ( p 42). When he got up from his chair he used on1.y his cane to a s s i s t him ( p 75). Plaintiff does not know why the chair moved (p 77), thc sidewalk underneatih the chair was essentially flat , althouqh it may slope off t o the curb a little bjt (id.) and he does n o t . bclieve that there was anyone sitting at the tablc hehind him (p 78) and t.he outside a r e a of the restaurant was empty (id.). 9 [* 11] I t i s now p l a i n t i f f s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t a y e n u i r l e i s s u c : e x i s t s ( B a r r v A l b a n y CouiiLy, SO NY2d 2 4 7 [1980]) a s t o 2s t o w h e t h e r when t h e u n s a f e c h a i r o r t r a p - l i k e s e t up o f c h a i r s was a t e n a n t c r e a t e d dangerous c o n d i t i o n o r t h a t i t e x i s t e d f o r a s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h o ¬ time p r i o r t o tihe o c c u r r e n c e of t h e a c c i d e n t ( P i a c q u a d i o v R e c i n e Realty C o r p . , 84 N Y 2 d 967 [1994]). Fein s afridavit. p r o v i d e s n o s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s f o r [.he c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t e n a n t was on n o t i c e t h a t t h e c h a i r was unsafe a n d f l j . r n s y w i , t h small legs l o c a t e d i n close p r o x i r n i t y t o o t h e r c h a i r s , on a s l o p e d s i d e w a 1 . k a n d t h u s , t h e a r f i d a v i t i s r e j e c t e d a s c o n c l u s o r y and u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d (see Z u c k e r m a n v C i t y of- N e w York, 49 NY2d 5 5 7 , 562 [1980] a n d lacking i n p r o b a t i v e v a l u e (Green v N e w York C i t y Hous.i.rlg A u t h o r i t y , 81 Ad3d 8 9 0 [2 - d D e p t 20111; P a l a d i n 0 v T i m e Warner C a b l e of NY C i t y , 1 6 A D 3 d 6/16 [2 D e p t 20051). I n fact, F e i n r s a v e r m e n t t h a t t h e c h a i r s w e r e si t . u a t e d t o o c l o s c t o g e t h e r d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s t - h e p l a i n t i f f s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e ate j n t h e p a t i o a r e a o f t h e r e s t a u r a n t many times b e f o r e , wi.th t h e c h a i r s , never h a d a problem a n d d o e s n o t know w h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e c h a i r o r why i t f e l . 1 ( P l a i n t i ¬ f s dep p 41), and i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t.he evidence and i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support s~zmrnary j u d g m e n t ( r i l l 0 v H e s j e f a i COI-JI- affidavit, judgrnenl, , supra, 1 6 AD3d 3 3 9 ) P l a i n t i f f s experL p r o f f e r e d a s the sole c v i d e n c e to defeat summary f a i l s t:o c o n t a i n s u f f i c i c n t allegations t o d c m o r i s t r a t e 10 [* 12] t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s i t c o n t a j - n s a r e more t h a n mere s p e c u l a t i , o n a n d w o i i l d , i f offered a t t r i a l , support a v e r d i c t i n t h e p r o p o n e n t s f a v o r ( s e e Romano v Stanley, 9 0 NY2d 4 4 4 l i g h t of p l a i n t i f f s [ 19971 ) . In failure tc p r o v i d e a n y a f f i r m a t i v e proof t.o d e r n o n s t r a t c a q e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t of- n e g l i g e n c e o n b e h a l f of t h e tcnarit, the tenant.'^ motiori for summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f i s also g r a n t e d . Accordingly, it is ORDERED a n d A D J U D G E D t h a t d e f e n d a n t , T w e l f t h S t r e e t C o r p o r a t i o n s motion for summary j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h i s a c t i o n i s granted w i . t h costs a n d disbursements; it is f u r t h e r ORDERED a n d A D J U D G E D t h a t defendant, F a y a S . C o h e n s m o t j o n for summary j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h i s a c t i o n i s a l s o g r a n t e d wi t:h c o s t s arid d i s b u r s e m e n t s . Dated: F e b r u a r y 9 , 2012 Enter: -UNFlLED JUDGMENT -This judgment has riot bee:~ entered by the County Clerk and notice of entry canno: !Eserved based hereon. To obtain entry, counsel or authorized representative must appear in person at the Judgment Clerk s Desk (Room 141B. ) -- c - kf LOuis ---.*_ 11 .- - - CLOSS

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.