Rachelson v Miller & Miller Realty Co. LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rachelson v Miller & Miller Realty Co. LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 32066(U) July 30, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113369/2010 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. UED ON 81612012 [* 1] * SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT: - NEW YORK SAUAMLXARPLJl I A COUNTY PART P 1? Justice INDEX NO. Index Number : 113369/2010 RACHELSON, SUSAN MOTION DATE V8 MILLER i MOTION SEQ. NO. Sequence Number : 001 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to were read on this motion to/for Notlce of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause - Affidavlts - Exhlblta ,.. Anawsrlng Affldavita - Exhibits Replying Aff ldavits Cross-Motion: Yes 0 No Upon the foregoing papers, It I ordered that this motion s 14 d([&d [A[ NEW YORK COUN7-Y CLERKS OFFICE Dated: Check one: u FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DO NOT POST SUBMIT ORDER/JUDG. 0 REFERENCE 0 SETTLE ORDER /JUDG. [* 2] c Index No.: 113369/2010 Submission Date: 5/16/20 12 -against- MILLER & MILLER REALTY CO. LLC, DECISION AND OliDER Defendant. X _r_____-_____ _____________r___ll______l--------------- ---------- For Plaintiff Vincent 1. Licata, Esq. 225 Broadway, Suite 3707 New York, New York 10007 212-349-6565 For Defendant: Argiro Drakos, Esq. 2 174 Jackson Avenue Seaford, New York 11783 5 16-409-6200 Papers considered in review of this motion for Summary Judgment: Notice of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Mem of Law in Support of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Mern of Law in Opposition. . . . . . 3 Aff s in Opposition. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Reply in Further Support of Motion., ......................... .I .5 Reply Mem of Law. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FILED AUG 06 2012 NEW YORK COUNW CLERK S OFFICE HON. SALIANN SCARPULLA, J.: In this personal injury action, defendant Miller & Miller Realty ( Miller ) inoves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for suinrnary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff Susan Rachelson ( Rachelson ) is a resident of 145 Seaman Avenue in New York City, a building owned by Miller. Rachelson alleges that on July 25, 2010, while traveling on the sidewalk adjacent to the building, she tripped and fell on a defect in the sidewalk. As a result, she alleges that she was violently thrown to the ground, sustaining severe injuries. 1 [* 3] In here complaint, Rachelson alleges that Miller was negligent in its ownership, operation, management, maintenance, control, and repair of the sidewalk. Specifically, Rachelson claims that Miller and its agents had actual and constructive knowledge of the existence of a hazardous condition in the sidewalk and failed to take steps to remedy it such as erecting a barricade or otherwise restricting use of the area. Miller moves for summary judgment on the ground that the defect that allegedly caused Rachelson s injury is trivial. Miller argues that the height of the defect in relation to the adjacent pavement was less than one inch and there were no other obstructions in the surrounding area that may have contributed to the creations of a dangerous condition. Further, Miller argues that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. Miller claims that no foot traffic obstructed Rachelson s view of the defect, and that Rachelson was a resident of the premises for over twenty years and never made any complaints about the condition of the sidewalk. Finally, Miller alleges that the building s managing agent, Paul Francis ( Francis ) performs weekly inspections of the building and sidewalk and never received any complaints about the condition of the walkway until after Rachelson s fall. In opposition, Rachelson argues that there is no bright-line depth rule to determine what is an actual defect, as opposed to a trivial defect. Consequently, Rachelson argues that Miller has not conclusively shown that the defect is trivial. On the issue of actual and/or constructive notice, Rachelson contends that Francis deposition testimony, in which he stated that he did not know about the defect until after Rachelson fell, is 2 [* 4] contradicted by an affidavit from Kelly Monaghan ( Monaghan ), dated June 20 10. The affidavit describes Monaghan s similar fall more than one month prior to Rachelson s and Monaghan s identification of the same defect to the building super Rad who claimed he would notify Francis. On reply, Miller seeks to preclude Monaghan s affidavit because Rachelson failed to disclose Monaghan s name and address as a witness during initial discovery for this matter. Miller argues that Rachelson has failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to disclose Monaghan as an initial witness. Discussion The possessor or owner of real property bears a duty at common law to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition, and may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on the property if the owner or possessor created, or had actual or . constructive notice of, the hazard. Trujillo v. Riverbuy Corp., 153 A.D.2d 793,794 (1 Dept. 1989). Further, New York Administrative Code 57-210 provides that it shall be the duty of the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Tucker v. City ofiVew York, 84 A.D.3d 640, 641 (lstDept. 201 1). Failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition may include: negligent failure to install, construct, reconstruct, repave, repair or replace defective sidewalk flags.. . Tucker, 83 A.D.3d at 641. However, the owner of a public passageway may not be cast in damages for negligent maintenance by reason of trivial 3 [* 5] defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his toes or trip over a raised projection. Morales v. Riverbay Corp., 226 A.D.2d 271,271 (1 Dept. 1996), quoting Liebl v. Metro. Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006, 1006 (2d Dept.1960). Trivial Defect In support of its claim that the defect at issue here is trivial, Miller relies on photographs of the defect to illustrate that its height is less than one-inch. However, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury. Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977 (1997). The defect here, while approximateIy three quarters of an inch in height, extends along the entire flagstone at the entrance of the building. There is no requirement that a hole in a public thoroughfare must be of a particular depth before its existence can give rise to a legal liability. Wilson v. Jaybro Realty & Dev. Co., 289 N.Y. 410, 412 (1943). Miller s argument hinges on the height of the defect however, a mechanistic disposition of a case based exclusively on the dimension of the sidewalk defect is unacceptable. Trincere, 90 N.Y.2d at 978. The length of the defect along the sidewalk, as well as the depth, raises an issue of fact as to whether the defect was trivial. 4 [* 6] Actual/Constructive Notice A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon lack of notice must make a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law. Currillo v. PMReall;v Group, 16 A.D.3d 61 1, 612 (2d Dept. 2005). In order to hold a landowner liable for a dangerous condition on its premises, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created, or had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition which precipitated the injury. Aquino v. Kuczinski, Vila &Associates, P.C., A.D.3d 216,219 (lgtDept. 2007) To constitute constructive 39 notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant s employees to discover and remedy it. Gordon v. American Museum of Natural Histoy, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837 (1986); see also Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Carp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969 (1994) (dismissing a general awareness argument as legally insufficient to establish constructive notice, and hold that liability attaches only when a landowner has actual or constructive notice of the specific condition at issue). Miller argues that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect prior to Rachelson s fall. In contrast, Rachelson argues that Miller had actual andor constructive notice of the defect because Monaghan states in her affidavit that, a month prior to Rachelson s accident, she tripped and fell on a raised portion of the sidewalk in the exact same area where Rachelson fell. Further, Monaghan also states that she notified 5 [* 7] the building super Raul who stated that he was aware of the defect and that he would notify Francis about the condition of the sidewalk. As a preliminary matter, the trial court typically has sound discretion for the degree of penalty associated with failure to comply with discovery orders. See Hanson v. City ofNew York, 227 A.D. 2d 217,217 ( lSt Dept. 1996). Preclusion of an affidavit is an extreme measure, which requires a showing that a party s conduct was willful and contumacious. Spitzer v. 2166 Bronx Park E. Corps., 284 A.D.2d 177 (1 Dept. 2001). Further, affording the defense an opportunity to depose the witness before trial is an adequate remedy to ensure equal examination in preparation for proceedings. See Cruz v. City ofNew York,81 A.D.3d 505,506 (1st Dept. 201 1). The issues addressed in Monaghan s affidavit are directly related to questions of fact regarding actual and constructive notice in opposition to the summary judgment motion. There is no evidence that Rachelson willfully or contumaciously withheld Monaghan s testimony to prejudice Miller and therefore Monaghan s affidavit will not be precluded. Miller has alleged that Francis did not have notice of the defect until after Rachelson s fall. However, Rachelson has raised a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of constructive notice by submitting Monaghan s statement that the defect had existed for over one month and that Miller had a sufficient amount of time to discover and remedy the condition. See Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y. 2d 625, 626 (1985) (Prima facie 6 [* 8] negligence claim established by showing of constructive notice fifty minutes prior to accident occurring). In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that defendants Miller and Miller Realty s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; and it is further ORDERED that should Miller is granted leave to take a deposition of Kelly Monaghan, Miller must notice the deposition within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of this order, and the deposition shall take place no later than twenty (20) days after the date of the notice. FILED This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: wo Ne York, New York July 2012 AUG 06 2012 E E R: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE 5 aliann Scarpulla, J.S.C. 1 To ameliorate any prejudice from Miller s late disclosure of Monaghan s statement, Miller is granted post-note of issue leave to depose Monaghan before the trial of this action. 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.