Jeremic v Scotto Smithtown Rest. Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Jeremic v Scotto Smithtown Rest. Co. 2020 NY Slip Op 34840(U) June 4, 2020 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Index No. 17-608242 Judge: David T. Reilly Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 608242/2017 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2020 ,JI()[\ I j t ll\ \ t t JR))! 1( INDEX No. l 7-(i08242 CAL.No. 19-0ll98OT Sl)l'RFl\11! COURT - STAIT or NEW YORK I.AS PART 10 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRES/:.,' ,VT:· MOTION DJ\TF 11-20-19 (001 & 002) 03-04-20 ADJ. DAIi: Mot. Seq. if 001 - MD I 1011. - - DA VII) T REILLY ---------.1 us tic e of the Supreme Colli\ ii 002 - XMD ----------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ---- ------ ---------- X MARDER, NJ\SS & \VIENER PLLC .\NGi:L.,\ JFRUVIIIC. Attorney for Plaintiff -:150 Seventh A venue, 3 7th Floor New Y nrk Ne\\ Y urk IO I 2.1 Plaintiff, - ag:tinst - LEWIS JOI IS A VALLONE A VILES. LLP Attorney for Defendants One CA Plaza, Suite 225 Islandia. New York 1174() S('OTTO S\1ITIITO\VN RESTAURANT CO., DIB/A \V ATER MILL CATERERS. SC()TTO S\llTI !TOWN I IUTl-1. LLC, D/IL\ \V !\ !TR l\1ILL C.\TERLRS, SCOTT(J'S S\1ITI ITO\Vt\ REST/\UR:\NT CO, D/B/A \\ .\TLR \lILL C,\Tl RERS :llld \\';\TER MILL ( ',\TERl:IZS. Defendants. ---- ---------- -- -- --- --- --- -------- ---- ---------- -------------- X lJpon tliL' t(,l\mv111g p;1pcrs rc,1d 011 this 11wt1011 for su111111arv p1du111<:nl and crnss mol1on for s:mctio11s : '-:u11cc of f\ 1C1t1,,n :111d supp,,rt 111g !,aper, bv dekmL111t Su,tto ·, S111ithtm\11 Restaurant C'llrp .. flied ( lctober I 5. 20 I')__. '-:ot1CL' o 1·( ·ru-" \ 1011011 and suppurtlllg p,1pns_Q.:~_pl,1111tiff, i"ilcd Nu\'emlwr ~- 2019 : ,\nswcring Artidav1ts :111d supporting p.ipers b\ plamt!IL filed ~ll\ L'lllbn I'.'. 2(1 I <J. b\ dck11da11t. filed Fcbruarv 11, 2020 : Rcply111g Affida\'its a11d support111g papers b\' dck11da11t. filed I c·hru:1r\ 1-1.2020 . O:hcr '.\YSCFI; docu111c11ts 1111111bned X, 'J. 10, 11, 12. 31, 32, 33. 3-1. -IO, rcspcct1\clv filed on 3 12 20\X. I 17 20 I 1), h I I 20 I 'J"_(~ll :~O_l 9, /), I l); 7 0 I 9 I I I 1212019, I 21-1120 I'), 12/192019, \;')/2020, 2.· 11-: 2020 ; (cilld ctlle! \1u1 illt, C1tttn,Se+·m,ttppnrt-::mth·rp-r(I.S(d to tl1e 1110tio11) it!,, OR/JERI:"[) that the motion ofdcf'cndant Scotto's Smithtown Restaurant Corp., db/a Watermill Caterers, for surnmaryjudgmL'nt cfornissing the plaintiffs complaint. pursuant to CPLR 3212, is denied: and it is J'urthcr OU/Jl:RJ:'f.> that the cross motion ol the pb111till lt1r an ()rdcr 1111pos111g ,,a11ct1,111s. pursua11t tu ( 'l'l .R 3 126. is denied, with partial leave lo renew at trial. [* 1] 1 of 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 INDEX NO. 608242/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2020 kremic \' Scollo Smithtown Rest, Index No. 17-(10~24:2 Page :2 . The prcscn: action was commenced by the plaintil{ Angela Jcrc 111 ic, (() reni\cr cL,mal!es for 111_1unes that she allegedly sustained as a result or falling while dancing 011 the dance floor at citcrinl! lacilny operated by defendant Scotto's Smithtown Restaurant Corp,, d!b/a \Vatcnnill Caterers ~ (here111alter \\ atennill), wh_ilc she was a guest at a reception. Ms. Jeremie contends that she slipped either 011 a small amo~111t ot l1qu1d or on a soti, waxy substance, both or \Yhich purport'-·dly \\·ere present llll th1_· danCL' lloor. \\ ;1tenmll, however. maintains that it neither created nor permitted such a condition on Ib llour. Alternati\ ely, it asserts that ii' indeed any cxtranrcous substance was present on tlw dance !1oor_ 11 ':<} actual or constructive notice of the existence of such condition prior to Ms. Jcrclllic 's :11leged la IL I hus. argt1L'S \Vatennill, it w;is not negligent in foiling to warn or or remedv the conditi()n pnur tu the foll and is nut liable fur ;my re~;ultant injuries that Ms. Jeremie ma:v have sus-tained :7 had :'v1s. Jeremie :1pposes \Vatennill's rnotion and cross-moves Coran Order strik,m: the ;111s\\Cr, or, altcrn;1ti\·cly, for an ach ersc inkrcncc charge, upon the ground or spoliation or e\·1de11~e, to \\'it: the alleged failure to pr,:senc and produce surn:illancc \ idco. She contends the\ idco would estahl1sh the truth or her :lllcgat1ons as to the occurrence ol'thc allcQcd accident. as well as its cause. !-or the fol Im\ ing reasons. the Court nm\ denies the motion for summary judgment, and denies the cross motion \\'ith partial lc:1\ c to n:ne\\'. In regard tu \ValL'rmill 's motion. a party seeking summary judgment must make a prima L1cic sho\\ ing of entitlcm,:nt tu judgment as a matter or law. by tendering evidence in admissible form sufficient to eli111i11:1k any material issues c,C fact from the case (see All'ltrez ,, Pro.,pect 1/o.,p., (1:--; "'-:Y2d -1:20. :'i08 l\;YS2d l)2\ [ \ l)8(, ]: IVinegrad v /Vew Yor/i Univ. Med. Ctr .. 64 NY:2d 851. 4~7 NYS2d 316 [ 198:'i] ). The movant has the initi:ll burden or proving entitlement to summary judgment ( Wi11egrad l' .\'l'lt' York Univ. ;lied. Ctr., Sll/J/·u). Failure to make such a showing requires denial or the 111011011. regardless of the sufT1cirncy of the opposing papers (JVi11egrad 1• /\'ell' York U11ii• ..lied. Ctr.. s11;m1) Once such proof has been offered. the burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must proffer e\ idcncc in ad111issiblc rmm. and must show facts sufficient to require a trial or any issue or fact, 111 order to dckat the motion for summary judgment (CPLR ]212 [b]: /1frare-;, l' Prospect 1/o.,p .. s1111m: L11cker111a11 v Cizr of New fork, 49 NY2d 557,427 NYS2d 59'.l [1980]). The court's function on a motion for summary _,1udgmcnt is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to resoh e issues uf Ltct or to determine matters of credibility, so the L,cts alleged by the opposing party and all mkrcnces that mav be dr:mn arc to be accepted as true (se(' Roth l' Harreto, 289 AD2d 557, 7_,5 NYS2d llJ7 [2d Dept 2001 ]: ()'Seil/ v Tmrn of Fishkill.1341\D2d 487,521 NYS2d 272 [2d Dept 1987[). The O\\ller or possessor ol'rcal property has a duty to ma111t1i11 the property in a rcasrn1abh safe comli t 1011 so as to pr,:\ cnt the occurrence or rurcsccab le rnj urics (see Peralta v I Jen riquez_ I 00 !'-: Y 2d I_,()_ 760 NYS2d 74 [ 2003 [; Fran/, v .IS 1/empstead Realzr, LLC 136 AD~d 742, 24 \:YS3d 7 I 4 [2d Dept 20 l :'i ]: G11-;.111a11 v State of'.\'ell' Yori,, 129 AD3d 77:'i. l O NYS3d 598 [2d Dept :201 '.l I). A dckndant mu\ irn: fur summarv 1mkrncnt in a slip and fall case has the initial burden of making a prima L1uc shU\\ 1nl! th::t it neither cr~i1tccl~ the ha/:1rduus condition nor had actual or cunstru-.:ti\c notice ur the cunditiun Cu1~a sufficient lcnQth of time to discover and remedy it (sec Petersel l' Good !·,a111arita11 1/osp of.\'uffcm, .\'. }'__ l)l) :\D3d ~~'<0. tJ5 l NYS2d lJ 17 \2d Dept 201 :2J: .lo/111son 1· Culinary Inst. o/Am .. <JS .\l),d 1077. tJ-1~1 :\JYS2d 307 [2d DL·pt 201:2]: /1111e11dola 1• City of'Nell' fork, 89 J\l)3d 775. t):,:2 NYS2d 172 [ 2d Dept :2011 J ). To constitute constructive notice. the conditll)n must be\ 1sihlc and [* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 INDEX NO. 608242/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2020 Jeremie\ Scuito Smithtown RL':;;t. Index 1\o I 7-(10x2~l2 l'a!:',e .\ apparent. and must exist ror a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the dckmbnt to discover and rern:dy 1t (Gordon 1• American Museum of'Natura/ flistm:r. 67 NY2d x]<i. "i() I NYS2d ~4~ [ ~ 98<1]: .11~' ,\cl1uhert-Fa11_!1ing 1• Stop & Shop Supermarl,et Co., !JC. I Ix AD]d 8(12. 988 '.':YS2d _4:--, l-~l ,De~1 t _()]41: Brm•o v )6./ ~enern Aw'. Corp .. 8] /d)]d(1]], 922 NYS2d xx [2d DqJt 201 IJ: Hollo!, 1 IJa/dhaum, Inc .. 71 ;\[)_)(! 618, 8% NYS2d 400 [2d Dept 2010j). Proof of the defendant's !:',eneral a\\ areness that a dangerous condition may be present is insufficient tu establish 110tiCl' or the cond1tllln ( 1,'e Gon;:ale-:. 1· Jene/ Mgt. Corp .. 11 ;\[)]d (15(1, 78-t l\'YS2d I ]5 [ 2d Dept 200-t] ). bt . Re\'ie\\ t!1e Cour~ of the p:1rties· papers, including :111nexed exhibits comprising transcripts of e\a1111nat1~ns bef1m: trial uf buth party and non-party \Yitnesses. establishes that multiple material issues ul triable fact e\1st, ,uch that sum111:1ry judgment docs not lie. Spccificallv. contradictorv factu:il testimony exists as to \\hether \V;1ten111ll had actual 11ot1ee of the existl'.nc; ofthL· allei!ecl haz:irdous condition upon its p1·2mises. and whether such condition was visible. apparent, and e;istL·d for a sufficient period pri 1.1r to Ms. krcrnic's alkged fall to have permitled \.Yaterrnill to disco\'er. \\'arn or and remedy 1t. i.e .. whether 11 had constructi\'e notice of such a condition. Accordin!:',ly, sumrnar\' judgment disrnissinb'. the complaint is denied. As to tvls. Jcr1:rnic's application for the imposition ofsanetions, "la] party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of e\ id,~nec must show that the party ha\·ing control over the evidence possessed an obligation to presen l' it at the time of its dl·struction. that the e\'idcnce \vas destroyed \\·ith a culp:1blc state of mind. and that the destroyL'd evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that tht..' trier of fact could find that thee\ idencc \\'OLild support that claim or defense" (l'ega.rns. li·iation I, Inc. v I 'a rig Logistica S.,L. 26 NY]d 54], 54 7. 26 NYS3d 2 l 8 [ 2015]: sec CPLR ] 126 ). \\'hen the c\ ide11cc \\as destrn;,nl \\ill fully. its rele\'ancy is pre-;urncd (Pegasus /1l'iatio11 I, Inc. I' J'arig /,ogistica S.A., s111m1). ! lo\\ e\er. \\·l;t..'n the evidence \\as negligently destroyed, a party seeking spoliation sanctions must dernunstratc that such evidence \\·as rl·lcvant to his or her claim ur dcf'cnse (Pegasus A1•iation I, Inc. 1• Va rig Logistica S./L, .111/Jnl). ··The Supreme Court has broad discretion in detenrnning \\hat.if anv, sanction should be imposed for spoliati,.m of evidence and may. under appropriate circurnsLlnces, 111;pose a sanction e\'l'n if 'the evidence \\as destroyed before the spoliator became a party. prO\·ided thl'. spoliator \Vas on notice that the e\'idence 1111,!ht be needed for future litigation"' (Smith 1· C1111ninglw111. 154 AD]d (1X I. 6:,,(2. 62 NYS]d 4]4 [2d Dept 20171. quoting Bi11iachl'ili 1• Yeshiva! Slware Torah, Inc .. 120 i\D3d (105. 606. l)l)() NYS2d 8 1)1 \2d Dept 20141). Ms. Jeremie has failed tu establish clearly that Watermill had notice of any cla1111 pnur to its receipt of cmrespornlcncc from hn counsel, which was nut sent to \Vatcrrnill until some three weeks after the datt..' of the ;dlec'.ed incident. Furthc:r. deposition testimony indicates that any relevant sun t..'illanct..' \ ideo \\ctil:l h:l\e been taped over automatically within three weeks of the date uprn1 \\'h1ch \b. Jeremie ;dlt..'c'.CS that she \\;1s injured. Thus. there has been no showing that Watenrnll 111te11tionally ur nq,Jigently fa;led t,J preserve vit.al e\ idence c1ftcr it \\as placed on notice that the evidence might be needed fur am· futun: 1ItiL'atit1n (sec Ta11ner ,, /Jethpagc L'11io11 Free Sch. Dist.. 161 i\D]d 1210. 7x '.\YS3d -+-'> [2d Dept 2018J; ,Jpo11te v Cloi·e Lakes Ilea/ti, Care and Rel,abilitation Ctr., Inc .. 15] :\D,d 59,, 59 I\YS,d 750 \ 2d Dept 20171). Fmthcnnore. t\b. Jeremie has not dernonstratcd ;111\ pre_J1id1ct..' Ln:il tll her 1:ause of actllJll (see .!.;c11cmll\' /{irschc11 v .llarino, I (1 ;\Ind 555. FJ2 NYS2d 171 I2d lkpt 2005 I: ./30 Par!, . h•e. Co. v Bani, o(Jlo11treal. 9 i\D]d ]20. 7X I '.'JYS2d 6 7 l I st Dept 2004 I). [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 608242/2017 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2020 Jere1111c \ Scutlu Smithtm, n Rest. Index Nu. 17-6082-12 Page -+ Accordingly. 0-ls. llTernic's cross motion ~.ceking sanctions pursuant to Cl'LR 312(J is denied. \\ith leave tu rene\\ at trial to the e.xll'nt of a request for an adverse inference charge. should an adequ:1te factu:t! slW\\ ing he made at that time. 110 j}-·~'{_c;I" 11----:z...... . Dated June-+. 2020 ? /" fJ .. - U-----~.;;-.I.S.C. £, ~ - ·- - - - - - - - - - Fl:\,\L DISPOSITIO:\ [* 4] \'. 4 of 4 :\ON-Fl:\AL DISl'OSITIO:\ -- - - .

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.