Dressman v Atlantic Aviation

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dressman v Atlantic Aviation 2013 NY Slip Op 33156(U) December 6, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 103842/2010 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 12/17/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Lf-<, PART PRESENT: Justice Index Number: 103842/2010 DRESSMAN, RONALD vs. ATLANTIC A VIA Tl ON SEQUENCENUMBER:001 INDEX N O . - - - - MOTION DATE _ _ __ MOTION SEQ. NO. - - - SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following papers, numbered 1 to~, were read on this motion \61for p~ ~~ Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits- Exhibits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I No(s)._ _,_ __ I No(s). ______ __ ,.. I No(s). - - - - - Upon the foregoing pape~. It is ordered~ ~ ~ /1AM": p>vtt~ ~ ~ ~ f1 ~ ~ {AJV¥r~~ ptµMf(f'.S ~p()-1 6Y' ~·~ WitlM· c.f.1....fL. 3 J).12.CitJ) ~ l"'J. ., ' w 0 ~ :::> j FILED .., g c w DEC 11 2013 LL w « .. > ~ -..J ..J z \j NEW YORK COUNTY CLER~ OFFICI « « w 'i ! :::> 0 LL Cl) I- <( w w « 0 g, (!) w z « 3: en w en <( 0 0 ..J ..J 0 LL - w z :c 0 Ii= « Oo :::ii: LL Dated: --~-~V)_'l_~ ..s__,J.S.C. __ l~ t.~ f..~ '~/ ~ LJ : . ;:~:~ < P· jCi J13 , 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 0 CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ...........................MOTION IS: ~GRANTED 0 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0 SETTLE ORDER 0DONOTPOST ("1 ·'" CB"NON-FiNA'CDISPOSITION DENIED 0 0 GRANTED IN PART OTHER 0 SUBMIT ORDER 0 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46 -------------------------~------------x RONALD DRESSMAN, Index No. 103842/2010 Plaintiff - against ATLANTIC AVIATION and US HELICOPTER, Defendants Fl[ED --------------------------------------x DEC 11 2013 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff sues defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained June 5, 2009, at the 34th Street Heliport in New York County, which defendants operated. Plaintiff was standing on an elevated platform on the premises in the course of his employment, when the railing at the side of the platform broke, causing him to fall from the platform. · Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on both defendants' liability. 3212{b) and (e). C.P.L.R. For the reasons explained below, the court grants plaintiff's motion against defendant us Helicopter, but denies his motion against defendant Atlantic Aviation. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS Plaintiff, to obtain summary judgment, must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence eliminating all material issues of fact. C.P.L.R. § 3212{b); Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503 (2012); Smalls v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d dressman.153 1 § [* 3] 733, 735 (2008); JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 384 (2005); Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 81 (2003). If plaintiff satisfies this standard, the burden shifts to defendants to rebut that prima facie showing, by producing evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial of material factual issues. Morales v. D & A Food Serv., 10 N.Y.3d 911, 913 (2008); Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 743, 744 {2004). In evaluating the evidence for purposes of plaintiff's motion, the court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37 {2004). If plaintiff fails to meet his initial burden, the court must deny summary judgment despite any insufficiency in the opposition. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 384. OWners, occupiers, and operators of premises owe a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Bucholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 8 (2005); Alexander v. New York City Tr., 34 A.D.3d 312, 313 (1st Dep't 2006); DeMatteis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 11 A.D.3d 207, 208 (1st Dep't 2004); Galbreith v. Torres, 9 A.D.3d 304, 305 (1st Dep't 2004). To hold defendants liable for an unsafe condition on the premises that defendants operated, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants created the condition or received actual or constructive notice of the condition. dressman.153 Alexander v. New York City Tr., 34 A.D.3d at 2 [* 4] 313; Mandel v. 370 Lexington Ave., LLC, 32 A.D.3d 302, 303 (1st Dep't 2006); Mitchell v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 372, 374 (1st Dep't 2006}. III. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was standing on an elevated platform and closing a heavy sliding door on the platform with his left hand. To steady his position, he grasped the railing at the side of the platform with his right hand. When the railing broke under his grasp, he lost his balance and fell to the tarmac below. Sandra Wells, a supervisor of US Helicopter, observed plaintiff's fall and testified at her deposition that the railing's collapse catapulted plaintiff over the steps that descended from the platform and onto the ground below. Wells also testified that before plaintiff's fall the railing had been broken and separated from the building structure to which the railing attached. Both Wells and Atlantic Aviation's general manager Patricia Wagner testified that us Helicopter was responsible for maintaining the premises. This undisputed evidence demonstrates plaintiff's entitlement to a judgment on liability against us Helicopter. Plaintiff fails, however, to present any evidence that Atlantic Aviation caused any broken or unsafe condition of the railing or was charged with notice of the condition. Plaintiff also demonstrates the absence of any factual question regarding his comparative fault. dressman.153 3 Sammis v. [* 5] Nassau/Suffolk Football League, 95 N.Y.2d 809, 810 (2000); Thoma v. Ronai, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 737 (1993); Maniscalco v. New York City Tr. Auth., 95 A.D.3d 510, 513 (1st Dep't 2012); Calcano v. Rodriguez, 91 A.D.3d 468 (1st Dep't 2012). See Gonzalez v. ARC Interior Constr., 83 A.D.3d 418, 419 {lst Dep't 2011); Strauss v. Billig, 78 A.D.3d 415, 416 (1st Dep't 2010); Tselebis v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 198, 200 (1st Dep't 2010). The record does not reveal that plaintiff was aware of any currently broken, weak, or other unsafe condition of the railing or any negligence on his part. His use of the railing for its intended purposes, to maintain his balance and guard against a fall, especially when the evidence discloses that the platform surf ace may have been slippery, was reasonable under the circumstances. ~' Wesley v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d 925, 926 (1st Dep't 2010) . In fact, plaintiff's failure to use the railing might have amounted to comparative negligence. See Williams v. 520 Madison Partnership, 38 A.D.3d 464, 466 n.2 {1st Dep't 2007}. acknowledged, 11 As Wagner it would be natural to hold something with one hand 11 to brace oneself when closing the heavy door. Jeffrey A. Rubin Ex. B, at 22. Aff. of See Wesley v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d at 926-27. IV. DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION Defendants contend that plaintiff disregarded an open and obvious unsafe condition, which would not negate defendants' duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, dressman.153 4 [* 6] Francis v. 107-145 W. 135th St. Assoc., Ltd. Partnership, 70 A.D.3d 599, 600 (1st Dep't 2010); Tuttle v. Ann Leconey, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 334, 335 (1st Dep't 1999), but which might raise factual questions regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence. Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 A.D.3d 89, 90 (1st Dep't 2011); Francis v. 107-145 W. 135th St. Assoc., Ltd. Partnership, 70 A.D.3d at 600; Tuttle v. Ann Leconey, Inc., 258 A.D.2d at 335. Although the railing was readily observable to plaintiff, no evidence indicates any observable broken, weak, or other unsafe condition of the railing. Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 A.D.3d at 92; Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 . A.D.3d 69, 72 (1st Dep't 2004). Plaintiff's awareness that the door was heavy and that. the weather was rainy does not demonstrate his awareness of any reason not to use the railing for its intended purposes. The fact that the door was heavy only indicates that more of plaintiff's body weight was applied pulling on the door rather that pushing against the railing. Insofar as defendants suggest that he might have avoided using the railing altogether had he lubricated the door or summoned two guards who were nearby to assist with closing the door, he bore no duty to do so. Moreover, even though the guards may have been nearby, plaintiff testified that only he was authorized to be in the area of the door. dressman.153 5 [* 7] V. CONCLUSION In sum, nothing in the record supports any comparative negligence by plaintiff in causing his injury. Wesley v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d at 926-27; Flores v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 599 (1st Dep't 2009); Neryaev v. Solon, 6 A.D.3d 510, 511 (2d Dep't 2004). Therefore the court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendant US Helicopter's liability for his claims and on the absence of his comparative fault, but, for the reason delineated above, denies his motion on defendant Atlantic Aviation's liability. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b) and (e); Sammis v. Nassau/Suffolk Football League, 95 N.Y.2d at 810; Thoma v. Ronai, 82 N.Y.2d at 737; Maniscalco v. New York City Tr. Auth., 95 A.D.3d at 513; Calcano v. Rodriguez, 91 A.D.3d 468. See Gonzalez v. ARC Interior Constr., 83 A.D.3d at 419; Strauss v. Billig, 78 A.D.3d at 416; Tselebis v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 72 A.D.3d at 200. order. DATED: This decision const~tutes FILED December 6, 2013 DEC 11 2013 the court's \ 1 . 1 NEWYORK~hriP~s couNTY cLERi(S ILLINGs, J. s . c. LUCY BILLINGS J.s.c. dressman.153 6

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.