Maldonado v Masaryk Towers Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Maldonado v Masaryk Towers Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 30752(U) March 23, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 113924/09 Judge: Barbara Jaffe 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. SCANNED ON 312712012 [* 1] Justice INDEX N O . Index Number : 113924/2009 MALDONADO, GUILLERMINA vs. MASARYK TOWERS SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. VACATE NOTE OF ISSUElREADlNESS ~. were read on this motion to/for The following papers, numbered 1 to PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhlblts Answering Affldavits - Exhlblts ... f 2 3 Replying Affidavits Cbss-Motion: Yes d o 1 Upon the foregolng papers, it I ordered that thls motion s FILED Dated: Check one: c FINAL DISPOSITION ! / Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST 0 SUBMIT ORDER/JUDG. n REFERENCE 0 SETTLE ORDER /JUDG. [* 2] Index No. 113924/09 Plaintiff, Motion Subm.: Motion Seq. No.: 12/20/11 00 1 -against- DECISION & ORDER MASARYK TOWERS CORPORATION and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, For Masaryk: Jonathan Groubert,Esq. Lester Schwab et al. 120 Broadway New York, NY 1027 1 2 12-964-661 I For City: John Orcutt, Esq. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel 100 Church St. New York, NY 10007 2 12-442-6851 By notice of motion dated November 3,201 1, defendant Masaryk Towers Corporation (Masaryk) moves for an order vacating the note of issue and striking the matter from the trial calendar as discovery has not been completed or, in the alternative, compelling plaintiff and defendant City to provide discovery and extending its time to file motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff and City oppose. At oral argument on December 20, 20 11, plaintiff and Masaryk resolved by stipulation the outstanding discovery between them. The only issue remaining is discovery pertaining to City. In this action, plaintiff alleges that on February 24, 2009, while she was crossing the intersection of Delancey and Willett Streets in Manhattan, she fell due to a dangerous condition on the curb/sidewalk at or near 246 Delancey Street, premises allegedly owned and/or maintained by defendants./Affirmation of Jonathan Groubert, Esq., dated Nov. 3,201 1 [Groubert Aff.], [* 3] Exh. A). On June 7,201 1, Masaryk served a discovery demand seeking from City repair records related to the sidewalk, sewer, fire hydrant, and water main in the area of the accident for the time period of two years before the accident to the present. (Id,,Exh. B). Masaryk asserts that post-accident repair records are relevant here as it is undisputed that the sidewalk where plaintiff fell has since been repaired but there is no evidence as to which entity made the repairs, and there is thus an issue as to which entity exercised control over the area. (Id). City asserts that post-accident repair records are irrelevant as the fact that an entity made repairs after plaintiffs accident does not reflect that it had a duty to maintain the area before plaintiffs accident, observing that section 7-2 10 of the Adminiitiative Code of the City of New York shifted liability for sidewalk repairs from City to abutting property owners. It thus argues that it may be held liable only if it affirmatively caused or created the defect at issue, and that post-accident records would not demonstrate whether it made any repairs or performed work at the location before the accident. (Affirmation of John Orcutt, Esq., dated Nov. 30,201 1j. In reply, Masaryk maintains that if City made post-accident repairs to the area, it exercised control over the area and therefore may be held liable for any defective conditions therein. (Reply Affirmation, dated Dec. 1,201 1j. In a negligence action, evidence of post-accident repairs is neither admissible nor discoverable (Hinton v Cily ofNew York, 73 AD3d 407 [l"Dept 20101, lv denied 15 NY3d 715), and may not constitute an admission of negligence (Stolowski v 234 E. 17 f hSt. LLC, 89 AD3d 549 [ 19'Dept 201 l]), absent an issue of control (Fernandez v Hi'gdon EL Co., 220 AD2d 293 [lgt [* 4] Dept 19951). Here, as the duty to maintain the sidewalk belongs to the abutting property owner and not City (Admin. Code 5 7-210), Masaryk s mere assertion that there is an issue of ownership or control of the area does not create an issue of control or ownership. (See Cortes v Cent. El., Inc., 45 AD3d 323 [lst Dept 20071 [motion to compel post-accident maintenance records properly denied absent issue of control]; McConneZZ v Suntanu, 30 AD3d 481 [2d Dept 20061 [court erred in requiring production of records of repairs and service to bus after accident]; Orlando v Ct of iy New York, 306 AD2d 453 [2d Dept 2003J [court providently exercised discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to compel post-accident maintenance records]; Sosa v C t ofNew York, 28 1 iy AD2d 469 [2d Dept 20011 [evidence of post-accident repairs was properly disregarded by court]; David v Ci@ o New York, 267 AD2d 41 9,420 [2d Dept 19991 [ [als there was no disputed issue f concerning the maintenance and control of the sidewalk where the accident occurred, the plaintiffs testimony regarding subsequent repairs should have been stricken ]; Angerome v City o New York, 237 AD2d 55 1 [2d Dept 19971 [as defendants admitted to maintaining and f controlling traffic light at issue, plaintiff not entitled to post-accident repair records3; compare Gordon v City ofNew York, 245 AD2d 184 [lstDept 19971 [post-accident repair estimates were discoverable as relevant to issue of who controlled or maintained sidewalk where plaintiff fell; action arose prior to enactment of Admin. Code § 7-2 lo]). Moreover, proof of post-accident repairs may not be used to establish that City negligently created the condition before the accident. (See Prince, Richardson on Evidence 5 4-6 12 [Farrell 11Ih ed] [ Evidence of repairs made after an accident is inadmissible if offered as an admission of negligence or culpability in causing the injury, because the inference is unjust 3 . . . .- . [* 5] and ublic policy forbids it. ]). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that defendant Masaryk Towers Corporation s motion to vacate the note of issue or compel is denied in its entirety. ENTER: &bara J a g JSC DATED: March 23,2012 New York, New York * MAR 2 3 zug ..

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.