Koran v Starrett City, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Koran v Starrett City, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 32620(U) July 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 15621/12 Judge: Ellen M. Spodek 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] 1~2112012 Dec<"°" and O<def did 7/1311~ Page 1of28C At an IAS Term, Part 76J, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the (~ay of July 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS JOSEPH KORAN Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 15621/12 DECISION/ORDER STARRETT CITY, INC. and STARRETI CITY ASSOCIATES, LP., Hon. Ellen M. Spodek Justice, Supreme Court Defendants Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affidavit. .. ....................... ............................ .. _1_ Notice of Cross Motion and Affidavit .......................................... .. Answering Affidavits ...................................................................... . _2_ Replying Affidavits ...... ...............,................................................... . _3_ Exhibits ................................. ........................................................... . Other ............................................................................... Upon .the foregoing papers, defendants STARRITT CITY, INC. and STARRITT CITY ASSOCIATES LP. move for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212. Plaintiff JOSEPH KORAN opposes the motion. 1 Pnn!Od 11/30J2016 [* 2] 1562112012 Oeosoon ond order did 7113115 Poge 2 0128 This case arises out of a bicycle accident that took place on June 8, 2012, outside 1500 Hornell Loop, a building owned by STARRETT CITY (defendants). Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the walkway In front of the building when an employee of defendants opened the fire exit door and struck plaintiffs left handlebar. Plaintiff subsequently fell, sustained temporary and permanent Injuries, and commenced this suit. Plaintiff argues that the fire door is both inherently dangerous and poorly maintained. As such, plaintiff argues that there are material issues of fact still in question and defendants have not established a prlma facie case for summary Ju.dgment. Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed. First, they argue that the fire door is open, obvious, and not inherently dangerous. The door Is painted red and the width of the door opening Is demarcated by the white cement contrasted from the Z-pattern of the rest of the walkway. Defendants contend that there Is enough room to bike on the walkway without interfering with the opening of the fire door. Second, they argue that there have been zero violations resulting from the fire door since its construction In 1974. There are yearly and monthly inspections and no defect was noted. In addition, they argue that there have been zero complaints regarding the fire door, most notably nothing from the plaintiff, who has frequently passed the fire door on his bicycle. "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tending sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material Issues of fact." Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 6S-NY2d 320 (1986). In this case, the Court finds that defendants made a prlma facie showing supporting the granting of summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish that there are any genuine Issues of fact. If the condition that created the Injury is both open and obvious and not Inherently dangerous as 1 matter of law, negligence cannot be the cause of the Injury. Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1A.D.3d48, 52 (2d Oep't 2003). There Is no question that the fire door was an open and obvious condition; It was painted red and the contrasted concrete floor to the rest of the walkway clearly illustrates the width of the door when opened. 2 PMlod 11/30/2018 [* 3] 1562112012 Deallon •n<l 0<def ~d 7113115 Page 3of28' ' Plaintiff argues that the condition being open and obvious Is relevant for comparative negligence, but does not remove a duty on the part of the defendants. Plaintiff provided an affidavit of an expert witness who testified that the condition was inherently dangerous by not having a vision light In the door. Defendants objected to the admission of plalntiff s expert testimony due to lack of notice. However, plaintiff reserved the right to supplement his response and have an expert witness testify on their behalf. The Court does not believe eight months Is long enough to be considered untimely when plaintiff reserved the right to supplement his response. As such, the affidavit is admissible. The plaintiffs expert witness does not point to any code or rule violation which required the need for a vision light in a fire door. The reference provided by the expert witness only discussed the need for defendants to maintain the building in accordance with the safety requirements. There is no mention of any source that deems a fire door without a vision light an unsafe condition. Additionally, in this case, there Is adequate room provided by defendants for bicycles to travel on the walkway without being within reach of the fire door opening. Lastly, there ls no indication that a vision light In the door would have made any difference in preventing the accident. A vision light would only give the person opening the door a view of directly in front of them. Here, plaintiff was coming from the right and the door hit the handlebar. Plaintiff further argues that the fire door was poorly maintained. However, as Indicated by the affidavit of Orlando Palmieri, Director of Maintenance of the complex In question, there have been zero violations Issued by the Department of Buildings or the Fire Department of the City of New York regarding the fire exit door In question. There have been no complaints flied about the fire door. Most notably, plaintiff himself has passed the fire door numerous times without Issue or complaint. As such, plaintiff failed to provide any evidence supporting the claim that the door was poorly maintained. - . Lastly, plaintiff argues that defendants' motion for summary judgment Is Invalid due to the lack of <!ffidavits provided by someone other than defendants' attorney. However, as already discussed, 3 Pnnied 11l30l2016 [* 4] 1562112012 Owsoon ond 0<de< did 7113115 Poge 4 01281 I defendants submitted the affidavit of Orlando Palmieri regarding the maintenance of the door. This In turn complies with the requirement of the admission of evidence supporting a claim for summary judgment. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that there are outstanding issues of material fact. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Plalntiff s complaint against the defendants Is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. JSC ' .. • ... &.:! " ~ ~ .n~c ·'· fjtef\ •• -Spi>Cl9k FILED JUL 2 4 2015 KINGS COUNTY CLERK'SOFFICE 4 PnnlOd 11/30J2018
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.
