Case ID: ad3d_137/html/0717-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antoinette Hunter, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.
    [27 NYS3d 387]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 29, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when her sock became caught on a broken tile, causing her to fall. Defendant presented evidence that the elevation differential between the broken tile on which plaintiff’s sock was caught and the floor beneath was one tenth of an inch. Defendant also submitted an expert affidavit showing that the condition of the floor did not violate any code, was not defectively designed, constructed or maintained, and did not present a tripping hazard (see Forrester v Riverbay Corp., 135 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the size of the defect itself, whether “its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnified] the dangers it pose[d], so that it unreasonably imperil[ed] the safety of [plaintiff],” (Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 78 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]), or “whether the defect was difficult for [plaintiff] to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” (id. at 80).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.