Belik v New York City Hous. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Belik v New York City Hous. Auth. 2011 NY Slip Op 33139(U) December 6, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 115589/2005 Judge: Paul Wooten 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. ANNEDON 121612011 [* 1] ,.,- ap2l'rthwnt ilfter belihg away orl ir tri en raining on and off since 2:OO P.M [* 2] I I I I step [she] slipped and fell badly ( njuries and required surgery. weeken& v a s a reclrrri ced dawn during tain Or ats and attemptkd to P.M. Custodian$ ;Ire . NYCHA rhaintqips that n~ ohe P i tn plaintiff's complaint, she intiff T I .. I 3] [* I xhibit 6, Coyplqint 7 16), Plaintiff rnai provide mats in the lobby area and that it ha condition (NYCHA's Exhibit C, Bill of Particulafs at 1.3). NYCHA Fontends that it did nqt hqvq 9 Wet Condition. l "The prqpgneht of i motion for sum matel'ial issues of fact in dispute, ahd that it t r 623, 630 [1$97]). ident, the plaintiff must p [* 4] allegedly existed, Sinoh N e plaintiff had,beev [* 5] urldisputed that it had been raining for allnost seven hQpr$prior to plaintiff's disputedy that the latest floor ctrruld hqve been in$pect.adpn thqtl d& was five hours prior to plaintiff'$ accident. Evidently, no NYCHA staff mopped up the tracked-in water on a rainy night for at least five hours prior to plaintiff'$ accident. Accordingly, even thgugh plaintiff had not be to arriving home at I@-@ peri4d of time ptior to the aqidknt the con'diti a 1 CornrnuterR.R. Go., 279 AD2d at 494). As guch, N a Realty Cbrp, (65 AD df the defendant's empl NYCHA further all l the footpriqts After she fell dowp in tha wq qnstant rain is evlderlce reasbn fQrhiaffall, thus, mere speculation regard as not been &le to meet its [* 6] I Atlantig & @qpjfic ComDamy, Inc,, Dept 20101 [internal citations omitted]) NYCHA further alleges t h i t fa/lurs to place m own does not raise dn' i$su with respect to constructive notioe. However, as plaintiff prQperly argues, if the jury find? that there was notice, then there mgy be an issue of fa whether Qr,not NYCHA was ny$ig$nt I for failing to take safety pr I tt v Capway $fw&(266 A I I 1 I 137 [l Dept 1899]), st I I The Court in HeWett 1 I I Accordihgly, it is hereby ORDERED that the New Yo denied. DaUd: Check ooe: I 1 aircumstances of the Case, which predlllde's sUMMary judgment at can be found, basad on CI]~INAI,,DI I

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.