Nisinson v Greenvale Townhouse Rest.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Nisinson v Greenvale Townhouse Rest. 2012 NY Slip Op 31581(U) June 12, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 102048/10 Judge: Joan M. Kenney 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 611512012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F NEW YORK NEW Y O W COUNTY PART -V- - N q t l ~ @ Mbtion/Order to Shbw C ~ U B BA f f i W k or -W i f b b Anowerlng Affidavits - Bxhfblts r , , , I I' RepIylnQ Affldavits I Upon the foregoing papers, it is Wered *at this m o M is; J.S.C. I CHECK . OH^: ..................................................................... CASE DISPOS~D ........................... M ~ TIS: t?W~N I T E D &ENIED l ~ 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ M T i & ORDER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: nDO NOT PQST *oN-FlNfc%&6 ITI O N GRAMTED IN PART 0OTHER uSUBMIT ORDER FJDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERSNCS [* 2] FILED SUPREME ('*OUR?' OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS P a r t R Dorj an Nisinson aiid JUN 15 2012 X _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I - D a v i d Nisinson, P1a i r i t i f f s , NEW YORK CLERK'S OFFICE Index Number: 102048/10 Motion S e q . Nos. : 002 DECISION AND -againstG r e e n v a l e Townhouse Restaurant, Mary Jannotta Perri and J o s e p h P e r r i , Defendants. X KENNEY, JOAN M. , J. Recitation, as required b y CPLIi 2 2 1 9 ( a ) , of the p a p e r s considered in r e v i e w of these motions to dismiss. Numbered 1-9 10-13 14 Papers Notice of Motion, Affirmation, a n d Exhibits Opposition Affirmation, and Exhibits Reply Papers In t h i . s p e r s o n a l i n j u r y action, defendant, Greenvale Townhouse Restaurant', moves far an O r d e r , pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaint. On October 10, 2008, p l a i n t i f f Dorian Nisinson allegedly tripped, f e l l , a n d sustained a number o f personal injuries in the parking lot accident) . located at Cove Rd., Greenvale, NY (the Defendant, G r e e n v a l e Towrihouse Restaurant owns , operates, and maintains the premises accident, Glen 49 plaintiff (the premises). alleges that she left On the date of the the premises at approximately 10:OOPM a n d started w a l k i n g to h e r car in the parking lot. Plaintiff was walking on the road bed, while her s o n and h i s 'After revlewiny the f i l e , defendants Mary Jannotta P e r r i a n d Joseph Perri have not. answered the complaint or otherwise a p p e a r e d in t h i s action. [* 3] girlfriend were S p e c i f i c a l l .y , walking plaintiff to next p.laintiff on sidewalk. the s t a t e s s h e was w a l k i n g be,Lween t h e r a i s e d c u r b o f t h e s i d e w a l k arid cement c a r s t o p s , w h i c h were approximately one f o o t w i d e a n d w e r e a l o n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e p a r k i n g s p a c e s . When p l a i n t i f f r e a c h e d the fourth p a r k i n g s p a c e , t h e c e m e n t c a r s t o p was apparently f l ~ ~ i hh w t the s i d e w a l k , as a result, p l a i n t i f f P l a i n t i f f i n j u r e d , i n t e r alia, h e r t r i p p e d on the c a r s t o p a n d f e l l . l e f t shoulder. and I t i s u n d i s p u t e d that t h e c a r s t o p i t s e . L f was n o t cracked, broken o r c h i p p e d . ( D o r i a n N i s i n s o n E x a m i n a t i o n Before T r i a l [EBT] a t 2 8 ) . Plaintiff claims t h a t i n i t i a l l y satisfactory, b u t the lighting i n the a s o n e w a l k e d toward t h e parking l o t , t h e l i g h t i n g g o t progressively w o r s e . l o t was parking rear of t h e P l a i n t i f f avers that t h e a r e a that caused h e r fall was not l i t a t a l l . . Plaintiff further a s s e r t s t h a t t h e l a c k of p r o p e r l i g h t i n g , combined w i t h t h e placement o f the c a r s t o p r e l a t i v e t o t h e c u r b , caused h e r t o trip and f a l l . P l a i n t i f f ' s e x p e r t , a professional e n g i n e e r , o p i n e s " w i t h a reasonable d e g r e e o f engineering c e r t a i n t y , [ t h a r ] t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e above defects . . . c o n t r i b u t e d to" a d a n g e r o u s condition a t t h e location. ( S e e E x h i b i t 3 o f p l a i n t i f f ' s o p p o s i t i o n p a p e r s ; S i l b e r m a n Expert Opinion a t 6 ) . Accor-di,iq t o d e E e n d a n t ' s c j e n e r a l m a n a g e r , F e r e o s Theosevis, t h e l i g h t i n g i,n t h e a r e a of t h e accident was more t h a n sufficient because there were multiple .lighting f i x t u r e s in the area at issue. (Theoscvis EBT a t 76-79), F u r t h e r m o r e , d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e 2 [* 4] was nothing i n h e r e n t l y d a n g e r o u s a b o u t t h e placement+ of t h e c a r s t o p . Arcnqents Defendant. i ~ r q u e sthat: the c o m p l a i n t should b e d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e : (1) t h e r e is defendants; no (2) evidence defendants d e f e c t - i v e condition; a n d obvious of coriditiori. (3) any did ncgligci!rice not have on notice behalf of any of the alleged t h e s u b j e c t c a r s t o p w a s a n open and Defendant also c o n t e n d s t h a t . pl a i . n t j ff, David Nisinsori' s claim of 1.oss o f consortium, s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e the primary claim of negligence by Dorian Nisinson is legally defective. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s summary judgment: m o t i o n m u s t be denied standards; because: (1) defendants violated applicable safety ( 2 ) defendants c r c a t e d t h e d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n a t i s s u e a n d , a t minimum, h a d actual o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e condition; ( 3 ) t h e d a r i g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n was n o t o p e n a n d obv.i,ous; a n d (4) t h e r e a r e d i s p u t e d issues o f f a c t t h a t n e c e s s i t a t e a t r i a l of this m a t t e r . Dirrwsqion Pursuant t.o C P L R 3 2 1 2 ( b ) , "a m o t i o n f o r s u m a i r y j u d g m e n t s h a l l be supported b y a f f i d a v i t , b y a copy o f t h e pleadings and by o t h e r a v a i , ] , a b l e proof, such a s d e p o s i t i o n s a n d w r i t t e n admissions. affidavit: shall be b y a p e r s o n h a v i n g knowledge of t h e f a c t s ; 'Yhe it s h a l l recite all t h e material f a c t s ; a n d i t shall show t h a t t h e r e i s no d e f e n s e t o t h c c a u s e o f action, n o r that the c a u s e o f action o r d e f e n s e does n o t have merit. The motion s h a l l be g r a n t e d i f , upon a l l t h e p a p e r s a n d p r o o f submitted, t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e i s 3 [* 5] established suffici,ently to w a r r a n t the judgment as a matter of law. Except as provided in 3212(c) of this rule, the motion shall be denied if any p a r t y demonstrates facts sufficient to r e q u i r e a trial. If i t a p p e a r s that a n y p a r t y other than the moving party is entitled t.o a summary j u d g m e n t , the court may grant reverse summary j u d g m e n t without the neccssi ty of a cross-motion." T h e ru1.e governing summary judgment is well established: proponent of a "The summary j u d g m e n t motion ,must m a k e a prima f a c i e showiny of entitlement to judyment as a matter of l a w , tendering sufficient. evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from t h e case." ( W i n e g r a d v N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y Medica.1 C e n t e r , 6 4 N Y 2 d 851 [19851; T o r t o r e 2 1 0 v C a r - l i n , 2 6 0 AD2d 2 0 1 [ l s l Dept 19991). Where the movant f a i l s to meet thi3 b u r d e n , the motion should be denied even i f the p a p e r s i.n opposition a r e inadequate. ( P a s t o r i z a v S t a t e , LO8 AD2d 6 0 5 [ l ' i ' D e p t . 19851). In order t o establish a prima facie case of negligence i n a trip and f a l l acti.on, plaintiff must demonstrate that d e f e n d a n t either, created a d a n g e r o u s condition, o r h a d actual a n d / o r constructive notice of the defective condition a l l e q e d (see J u d i t h D. A r n o l d v N e w Y'ork City Housing A u t h o r i t y , genuine issue of material 296 A D 2 d fact exists 355 [lst Dept 20021). A Eails to when defendant establish that i L did not have either actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition. ( A v i l e s v 2333 1"' C o r p . , 66 A D 3 d 432 [l"' Dept. 2 0 0 9 1 ; B a e z . - S h a r p v New Y o r k C i t y T r . A u t h . , D e p t . 20071). 3 8 A D 3 d 229 [ l " "To constitute constructive notice, a d e f e c t must be 4 [* 6] visible and apparent and it m u s t exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the owners'] employees to discover and remedy it." (Seqretti v S h o r c n s t e i n C o . , E . , L.P. 256 I A D 2 d 234, 235 [19981). Defendant h a s failed to set f o r t h a prima f a c i e entitlement to the relief s o u g h t b e c a u s e t h e basis of its alryument: regarding the actual physic;al appearance of the car s t o p d o e s n o t by itself prove it was no% defective. Plaintiff c l a r i f i e d during her EBT t h a t her claim is based iipon the positioning of the car s t o p , along with poor lighting conditions in the p a r k i n g attendant Lhe caz- s t o p itself. lot; not. any physical defect (Dorian N i s i n s o n EBT at 39). P l a i n t i f f d i d not. c l a i m t h a t , the car stop w a s " c r a c k e d " ox " b r o k e n . " Therefore, d.i.sm.i ssal based on arguments not raised in o p p o s i t i o n is n o t warranted. Deferirlant.'~ claim t . h a t it did not have notice of the a l l e g e d defective p1.acernent of t h e car stop cannot be s u s t a i n e d . Defendant's general manager t e s t i f i e d that the location of the car stop was exactly t h e same since 1985 up until 2010. (Theosevis EBT at 51-52, 60). The f a c t t h a t the location of t h e car s t o p h a d been the same for 23 years prior to the accident is sufficient t a e s t a b l i s h actual notice (and at minimum, constructive notice) of the car stop's alleged d a n g e r o u s location. The sufficiency of the lighting in the parking lot is a question for the finder of fact to decide. The g e n e r a l . manager testified t h a t : he could not r e c a l l the last time the bulbs for: the w a l k w a y in the p a r k i n g lot were changed. (Theosevis EBT 5 [* 7] a t 92). Defendant. 5 t,h.ird argument that t h e case should be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e of the iorie statement t h a t t h e placement o f t h e c a r s t o p was a n open atid obvious c o n d i t i o n i s insufficient D e f e n d a n t f a i l e d to I s u p p o r t i t s c : o n t e n t i . o n s f o r dismissal b a s e d upon this u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d statement. Plaintiff h a s failed t.o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e showing of e n t i . t l e m e n t t o s u m m a r y judgment a s a m a t t e r o f 3.aw. Defcndanl-. i s under no o b l i g a t i o n t o come forward w i t h e v i d e n t i a r y p r o o f c r e a t i n g a triable i s s u e o f f a c t . ( s e e M a r i e C h r . i s t i a n a v Joyce I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n c . , 198 A D 2 d 690 [3 D e p t . 1 9 9 3 1 ) . A niovant s to failure sufficiently demonstrate a right to summary judgmcnt requires a d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s u f f i c i e n c y , o r l a c k thereof, of t h e o p p o s i n g p a p e , r s . ( W i n e g r a d v NYU 64 NY2d 851 [ 3 . 9 8 5 ] ; Zuckerman v C i t . y of NY, 49 N Y 2 d 557 Med. C e i i t e r , [19001; [2OOO]; of A n i m a 1 3 v Associated F u r Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065 friend.^ L u r i e v C h i l d s Hosp., 70 A D 2 d 1032 [ 3 r U e p t . 1 9 7 9 1 ; C u g i n i v System L u i n c r Co., Lastly, 111 A D 2 d 114 [1 Dept. 1 9 8 5 1 ) . defendant argues ¬or the dismissal of the loss of c o n s o r t i u m c l a i m b e c a u s e i t i s derivative and c a n n o t s u r v i v e because the p r i m a r y cause of action must be dismissed. It i s undisputed t h a t the. c a u s e o ¬ a c t i o n f o r loss of consortium is d e r i v a t i v e . v Gsayson, 98 AD2d 353 [l Dept. 19841). The (Belanoff concept of consortium i n c l u d e s n o t o n l y l o s s o f support o r s e r v i . c e s , but a l s o such elements as I.ove, companionship, a f f e c t i o n , society, s e x u a l relations, s o l a c e a n d more. ( M i l l i n g t o n v S e . E l e v a t o r Co., 22 NY%d 6 [* 8] 498 [1968]). defendant hdS Since thc primary cause of action remains, and SaJled t o a d d r e s s the merits o f the c o n s o r t i u m claim, defendant s application Accordingly, for dismissal, is it is h e r e b y ORDERED k h d t: named its defendant s summary also denied. judgment m o t i o n , is denied, i n iLs entirety; and it is f u r t h e r ; ORDERED that the Clerk of the C o u r t s h a l l enter j u d g m e n t in f a v o r of defendants Mary J a n n o t t a P e r r i a n d J o s e p h P e r r i , a n d a g a i n s t p l . a i n t i ¬ f s , dismissing the complaint s o l e l y against these d e f e n d a n t s for plaintiffs failure to p r o s e c u t e this a c t i o n a g a i n s t t.hem and/or f a . i l u r r e to s e e k a default judgment within o n e year after default ( s e e CPLR 3 2 1 5 ( c ) ) ; and it is further; OKDRED that the p a r t i e s proceed to mediation, forthwith. # . i Joan M. Kenney, J.S . C . FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK S OFFICE 7

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.