Koutsos v New York Presbyterian Hosp.-Weill Cornell Campus

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Koutsos v New York Presbyterian Hosp.-Weill Cornell Campus 2012 NY Slip Op 30672(U) March 15, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100501/2009 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla 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. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO ?K - NEW YORK COUNTY n PART 'Justice Index Number : 100501/2009 r"t INDEX NO. KOUTSOS, MARKOS MOTION DATE VS. PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL MOTION $EO. NO. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION CAL. NO. -,- SUMMARY JUDGMENT this motion tolfor Notice of Motlon/ Order to Show Cause - Attldf3Vlt8 - Exhibits ... I Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavit8 Cross-Motion: Yes I PAPER$ N U M W NO Upon the foregoing papers, It is ordered that this motlon i3 d w I fd '\fl Dated: Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION NON- FINA L DIS POSIT10 N REFERENCE 0 DO NOT POST0 SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. 0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. Check if appropriate: [* 2] Plaintiffs, Index No.: 100501/09 Submission Date: 1 1/2/11 - againstNEW YORK PRESBWRIAN HOSPITAL-WEILL CORNELL CAMFUS, For Plaintiffs: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C. 120 Broadway New York, NY 1027 1 .. PECISION AND ORDER For Defendant: Keller, O Reilly & Watson, P.C. 242 Crossways Park West Woodbury, NY I 1797 Papers considered in review of this motion for summary judgment Notice of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Aff in Opposition. ........... . 2 Reply ..................... .3 HON. SALIANN SCARPULLA, J.: In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornel1 Campus ( NWH )moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On March 17,2007, plaintiff Markos Koutsos (( Koutsos ) accompanied his brother, who was complaining of chest pain, to the NYPH emergency room. Koutsos brother s wife, Joanna Koutsos ( Joanna ), then arrived at the emergency room. Sometime between 2:OO a.m. and 3:OO a.m, Koutsos accompanied Joanna outside to get a taxicab and when he returned inside to the emergency room approximately five minutes 1 [* 3] later, he slipped and fell due to an alleged wet and slippery floor condition. Koutsos commenced this action seeking to recover damages for the injuries he sustained to his wrist as the result of his fall. It is undisputed that a snow storm was in progress at the time of the incident and for at least several hours prior thereto. Koutsos testified at an examination before trial that a security guard and triage nurse witnessed his accident. There were no mats on the floor in the area of his fall. After he fell, he noticed that the floor was wet. He testified that before he fell, he had been looking straight ahead while walking, and did not see any water on the floor prior to his fall, but then testified that he had seen water on the floor before he fell. He believed that the floor was wet because people who were coming into the emergency room were tracking in the snow from outside. Joanna also noticed that the floor was wet with muddy, slushy footprints. Lauren Reed ( Reed ) was a triage nurse working in the emergency room at the time of Koutsos accident. She testified at an examination before trial that she filled out the incident report for Koutsos accident. She did not recall the incident and did not recall whether there were mats or warning signs on the floor at that time. She explained that mats were supposed to be placed on the floor by someone from environmental services when it was raining, Claims on behalf of plaintiff Helen Gouzoulis were voluntarily discontinued with prejudice by stipulation of discontinuance dated February 17, 20 10. [* 4] Environmental Service night manager Colin Christie ( Christie ) testified at an examination before trial that pursuant to NYPH s hospital policy and procedure manual, NYPH employees were required to lay out mats on the floor at the emergency room entrance in &incumbent weather which was defrned by Christie as at the first signs of rain or snow. They were also required to put wet floor signs out and monitor the entrance. He explained that this was all done to prevent people f o slipping and falling. rm NYPH now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. NYPH first contends that Koutsos injury occurred due to water tracked in to the emergency room lobby while a storm was in progress and NYPH does not have the obligation to constantly maintain dry floors during inclement weather. .. NYPH next maintains that no evidence has been presented to establish its creation or actual notice of the condition. Finally, NYPH argues that Koutsos claim of constructive notice can not be maintained because it only rises to the level of a general awareness that it was snowing outside and that water could have theoretically been tracked into the lobby of NYPH, which is insufficient to impute constructive notice to NYPH. No evidence has been presented that the condition existed for a sufficient period of time to allow NYPH to have discovered and remedied it. In opposition, Koutsos argues that issues of fact exist as to whether NYPH had notice of the dangerous condition and as to whether it took reasonable measures to remedy a foreseeable hazard. Koutsos maintains that pursuant to NYPH s hospital policy 3 [* 5] and procedure manual and Christie s testimony, NYPH employees were required to lay out mats on the floor at the emergency room entrance at the first signs of rain or snow. They were also required to put wet floor signs out and monitor the entrance. Based on Koutsos testimony, on the night of the subject incident, there were no mats or signs and no one was monitoring the entrance, even though the storm had long been in progress. Koutos further argues that NYPH fails to present any evidence that any of its employees were present at the time of the accident or inspected the accident area at a specified time. NYPH employees have merely provided that they had no recollection of conditions or remedial measures that may or may not have been implemented on the date of the accident. piscussion The owner or operator of a business must take reasonable care that the public shall not be exposed to danger of injury through conditions in the premises or at the entrance which it invites the public to use. See Razla v. Surgical SockShop II, Inc., 70 A.D.3d916 (2nd Dept. 2010); Podell v. 1315 Second, L E , 23 Misc. 3d 1104A (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 2009). However, the business owner or operator is not obligated to provide a constant remedy to the problem of water or snow being tracked into the premises caused by inclement weather. Hackbarth v. McDonalds Cor-.,3 1 A.D.3d 498 (2nd Dept. 2006). Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, NYPH simply argues that, because Koutos fell during a storm in progress, NYPH had no constructive notice of a 4 [* 6] dangerous condition as a matter of law and no obligation to maintain the floor in a completely dry condition. However, Koutsos does not argue that NYPH had an obligation to keep the floor completely dry during the snow storm. Rather, Koutos argues that NYPH did not take any measures at all to remedy a foreseeable hazard - a wet floor during the progress of a long-lasting snow storm. On its motion, NYPH fails to submit sufficient evidence that, at the time of KOU~SOS it took any measures to prevent or remedy the wet condition on its fall, premises, even though it had been snowing for several hours. CJ Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of the Ams.. LLC, 65 A.D.3d462 (lSt Dept. 2009); Ford v. Citibank, MA., 11 A.D.3d 508 (Znd Dept. 2004). The evidence presented shows that the floor was wet from .. water and snow tracked in from the outside and NYPH did not cover any part of the floor with mats or spend any time mopping up any snow or water. CJ Ford v. Citibank, N.A., 11 A.D.3d 508 (2nd Dept. 2004); Sook Ja Lee v. Yi M i Bakery C o p , 305 A.D.2d 579 e (2nd Dept. 2003). NYPH s policy and procedure required that mats be placed at the frrst signs of snow or rain, that warning signs be placed in the area and that an employee monitor the area. Christie specifically testified that this policy and procedure was in place to prevent NYPH properly maintains that where a defendant s internal policy requires a standard that transcends the duty of reasonable care, a defendant s breach of the policy cannot be considered evidence of negligence (see Pomahac v. TrizecHuhn I065 h e . of the A m . . LLC, 65 A.D.3d 462 I] la Dept. 20091). Here, however the court finds that NYPH s policy of placing mats and warning signs during a storm is entirely consistent [* 7] slips and falls. Further, Koutsos' deposition testimony that the floor was wet at the time of his fall and no mats or warning signs were placed in the location of the accident is unrebutted. See Signorelli v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 70 A.D.3d 439 (lBt Dept. 2010). Therefore, an issue of fact exists as to whether NYPH could have remedied a reasonably foreseeable hazard (water on the floor of its premises during a long-lasting snow storm) by the exercise of reasonable care. In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERJ3D that defendant New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Campus' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. .This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: . New York, New York MarchE, 2012 FILED5 MAR 2 0 2012 ENTER: V with the standard of ordinary reasonable care, and does not transcend that standard. J

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.