McIntosh v Tenth Church of Christ Scientist in the Borough of Manhattan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
McIntosh v Tenth Church of Christ Scientist in the Borough of Manhattan 2014 NY Slip Op 31479(U) June 9, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 402133/11 Judge: Debra A. James 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] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY DEBRA A. JAMES PRESENT: PART 59 Justice Index No.: MARY McINTOSH, Plaintiff, -v- 402133/11 Motion Date: 09/20/13 Motion Seq. No.: 001 FILED TENTH CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, Defendant. JUN 102014 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE The following papers, numbered 1 to 3 were read on this motion for summa~T~~~~~. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits -Exhibits g~ c Wl£1:! a! >o ::f u. LL No (s) ¢ 2 Replying Affidavits - Exhibits No (s) ¢ 3 Cross-Motion: C Yes 181 No Upon the foregoing papers, Defendant Tenth Church of Christ Scientist in the Borough of ..J w ..J a! 0 a! u. WW u. :.:c :::> 1 Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ~ z 0 wen o<C _w I- a! en e> =>z .., - No (s) ¢ Manhattan moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. This is a personal injury action involving a trip and fall incident. Plaintiff alleges that on May 23, 2010, she was on l- o w 0. defendant's premises located at 43 Wooster Street, New York, New (/) w a! ~ w York, with her husband, who was employed by defendant to clean ~ its facility. 0 process of moving the property of the defendant from the ~ Members of the board of the defendant were in the j:: 0 ::E premises, which was its temporary facility, into its permanent 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: MOTION IS: 181 CASE DISPOSED 181 GRANTED 0 DENIED 0 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: [J SETTLE ORDER 1. CHECK ONE: ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ , ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 DO NOT POST 0 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART 0 0 OTHER SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [J REFERENCE [* 2] facility. As she had done on prior occasions, on the day of the accident, plaintiff accompanied her husband to assist him in the cleaning responsibilit Plaintiff claims that she was walking from the front door to the reading room, which contained various items on the floor, including mats and boxes filled with books. She did not know who had placed these items there but claims that her husband was instructed to place them outside on the street so as to be thrown away. Plaintiff, while walking, tripped over a plastic mat on the floor, which was among such garbage, and fell. Plaintiff states that she was only aware of the mat in its turned up condition after her fall. The mat was later discarded by her husband. Plaintiff states that she suffered serious injuries as a result of the fall and brings this action against defendant for its leged negligence in creating a dangerous condition on the premises. Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it did not create or cause a dangerous condition that resulted in the accident, and did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the accident. Defendant contends that the mat in question, which was in a turned up form at the time of the accident, did not create an inherently dangerous condition in the reading room. According to defendant, the placement of a mat amongst items for disposal as -2- [* 3] garbage is not a condition that would constitute a hazard. Defendant argues that, even if it can be argued that a turned up mat could create a hazard, there is no testimony to date that the mat was in a turned up pos ion prior to plaintiff's fall. Defendant also contends that defendant lacked knowledge of any dangerous condition. evidence Defendant states that in the absence of defendant having either actual or constructive notice, defendant is not liable for negligence. Alternatively, defendant avers that the mat was such an open and obvious object that it could not constitute a hazard in any reasonable way. Plaintiff opposes this motion, claiming that there remain issues of fact as to whether defendant created the condition of the turned up mat or had constructive not of such condition. Plaintiff states that defendant has not presented any proof that indicates the last time the mat or the area iri question was examined. Plaintiff also states that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the condition was open and obvious. "It is axiomatic that summary judgment is a drast remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of factual issues. (Pt Dept 2007) . 11 Birnbaum v Hyman, 43 AD3d 374, 375 "Where a defendant is the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, it has the burden of establishing that there are no material is entit sues of fact in spute and thus that it to judgment as a matter of law." Flores v City of New -3- [* 4] York, 29 AD3d 356, 358 (1st Dept 2006) . "Once defendant demonstrates its entitlement to summary judgment, shifts to the plaintiff to present facts, burden then admissible form, demonstrating that genuine, triable issues exist precluding the granting of summary judgment." In its motion, defendant relies on the deposition testimony plaintiff and an employee of defendant, Diane Minnella. Plaintiff testified that she had not noticed the condition of the mat in earlier. stion when she was the reading room a week On the day of the accident, she had not seen the mat until after she tripped over it. She stated that she had not been aware of the condition of the mat, turned up appearance, prior to her fall. Minnella testified that she saw a plastic mat under a rolling chair in the reading room, on which she was seated, on the day of the accident. turned up mat. She testified that she did not see a According to her testimony, Knight did not see plaintiff fall but sometime after Minella's arrival at premises that day, plaintiff came into reading room and told her that she had tripped on a rolled up carpet and hurt herself. As there was no rolled up carpet in the reading room, and Minella had only seen rolled up carpets in the ement, she understood that the accident had occurred in the basement. 4- [* 5] Plaintiff argues that the deposition testimony of Kelly Knight, a board member of defendant church at the time of the accident, raises an issue of fact as to notice. Knight testified that she was a member of a group of parishioners who assisted in the move of the church, that she was not present on the premises on the day of the accident, and did not recall the last time she was at the premises before the date of the accident. Knight testified that she only recalled that sometime prior to the accident she saw one plastic mat under the desk chair in the reading room, but recalled neither its condition nor any further details about the mat. Defendant argues that there is no evidence that shows that defendant was responsible for a defective condition leading to plaintiff's injuries. Defendant states that plaintiff cannot identify the condition of the mat prior to the accident and whether the mat was defective. With respect to constructive notice, there must be a showing that a visible and apparent defect existed "for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit a defendant to discover and remedy it." Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 (1986). Defendant contends that plaintiff's testimony demonstrates that she was not aware of the mat prior to the fall and, from this, it would only be a matter of speculation that the -5- [* 6] mat was there for a sufficient time to provide any notice for defendant. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to what defendant has asserted, defendant has the burden to show that it lacked actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Plaintiff avers that defendant fails to meet this burden as it offers no evidence concerning the last time the mat was cleaned or inspected prior to the accident. Plaintiff also states that defendant has not offered evidence that the mat was in a flat position prior to the accident. Plaintiff states that she alleges in her complaint that defendant created a dangerous condition in the form of a turned up mat, and that the element of notice, actual or constructive, is not essential. "An owner of property has a nondelegable duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account the foreseeability of injury to others [citation omitted] Fuller-Mosley v Union Theol.Seminary, 10 AD3d 529, n 530 ( Dept 2004) . The court disagrees with defendant's argument that since the condition is open and obvious defendant must prevail on its motion for summary judgment. "An open and obvious hazard may negate the duty to warn, but it does.not negate liability in negligence, because an owner still has a duty to ensure that its premises are maintained in a reasonably safe condition [citations -6- [* 7] omitted} .n Caicedo v Cheven Keeley & Hatzis, 59 AD3d 363, 363 Dept 2009). Nonetheless, the court finds that defendant has met its prima f ac the bas burden that negates its liabili in negligence on of evidence that it neither created the putative defect, nor had actual or constructive notice of such defect. The deposition the testimony of defendant's employee and plaintiff, which were submitted by defendant, show a lack of evidence either that defendant (1) created de condition, i.e. the turned up edge of the mat, {2) ive had actual knowledge of such defective condition or (3) should have had knowledge such defective condition time to remedy it. Early v Hilton Hotels Corp., 73 AD3d 559 Dept 2010} ; Aniello v 1370 Broadway Associates Corp, 28 AD3d 383, 384 2006) . Dept Plaintiff comes forward with no evidence that ses an issue of fact that the mat in question was turned up prior to her fall, alone that defendant placed such mat that condition or had knowledge that it was in that condition prior to f 1. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Tenth Church of Christ Scientist in the Borough of Manhattan's motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk, upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further 7- ................ ·~~--------------- [* 8] ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated: June 9 2014 ENTER: DEBR~ A. JAMES f J.s.c. '..J ' i' Ii /i ,JUN 1 0 2014 COUNTY CLERK'S OFF/CE NE\/\/ YORK -8-
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.
