Court Opinion

ID: 9958696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:17.33926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.138781
License: Public Domain

Kreindler v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31136(U)
                      April 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153525/2016
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
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. 153525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 457                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                            HON. HASA A. KINGO                                  PART                              05M
                                                           Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          153525/2016
             ARLENE KREINDLER, MICHAEL KREINDLER,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         05/23/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.         011
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 723 ASSOCIATES LLC,
             LARSTRAND CORPORATION, FRIEDLAND PROPERTIES
             INC, ELI'S ESSENTIALS, ELIZABAR, CONSOLIDATED
             EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., OLSON'S
                                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             CREATIVE LANDSCAPING CORP., EMPIRE CITY
             SUBWAY COMPANY (LIMITED), CEMUSA NY LLC, VALES                                                 MOTION
             CONSTRUCTION CORP, EAT LEXINGTON 87, LLC D/B/A
             ELI'S ESSENTIALS AND ELIZABAR

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 011) 397, 398, 399, 400,
            401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421,
            422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 443, 445, 447, 449, 451, 453
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                    Defendant, City of New York (“City”), moves for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212,
            granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against the City.
            Plaintiffs Arlene Kreindler (“Plaintiff Arlene”) and Michael Kreindler (“Plaintiff
            Michael”)(collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. For the reasons stated herein, the City’s
            motion is granted.

                                                                   BACKGROUND

                    On August 1, 2015, Plaintiff Arlene tripped and fell because of a depressed and uneven
            tree well located at 1390 Third Avenue between East 79th and East 80th Street (NYSCEF Doc No.
            398, Herzog affirmation ¶ 2). Specifically, Plaintiff Arlene alleges that the soil in the tree well was
            not flush with the surrounding sidewalk (id. ¶ 37).

                     Plaintiff Arlene and Plaintiff Michael commenced this action on April 26, 2016 (id. ¶ 3).
            Plaintiffs subsequently filed amended complaints on December 13, 2016, and January 23, 2019
            (id. ¶ 3). On February 14, 2018, issue was joined by the City’s service of its answer to the amended
            complaint (id. ¶ 4). On February 4, 2016, Plaintiffs appeared for a hearing pursuant to General
            Municipal Law § 50-h (id. ¶ 18). Plaintiffs were deposed on September 29, 2017. The City
            produced two witnesses for deposition and the depositions were held on February 14, 2018, and
            October 17, 2022 (id. ¶¶ 24, 30). Co-Defendants 732 Associates LLC, Larstrand Corporation,

             153525/2016 KREINDLER, ARLENE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                         Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 011

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 153525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 457                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

            Friedland Properties, Inc., Eat Lexington 87 d/b/a Eli’s Essentials, Elizabar, Olson’s Creative
            Landscaping Corp., Empire City Subway Company (Limited), and Vales Construction Corp., were
            all previously granted summary judgment (id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 15). The action was discontinued as
            against Co-Defendant Cemusa NY, LLC (NYSCEF Doc No. 410, Exhibit K).

                     The City now moves for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims
            against it on the grounds that the City did not have notice of the condition and it did not cause or
            create the condition. In support of its motion, the City offers uncontroverted evidence including
            testimony, pleadings, photographs, public records, and statutory regulations, which demonstrate
            that it did not have notice of the defective condition and it did not cause or create the defective
            condition. In support of these arguments, the City proffers evidence that it conducted a two-year
            Department of Transportation sidewalk search for the sidewalk located on Third Avenue between
            East 79th and East 80th Street (NYSCEF Doc No. 398, Herzog affirmation ¶ 22). The permits,
            corrective action requests, notices of violation, inspections, and complaints adduced by the search
            do not provide written notice of the subject condition (id. ¶¶ 23, 24). The City also offers evidence
            that the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation conducted a five-year search for
            records pertaining to the tree well alleged to have caused Plaintiff Arlene’s accident (id. ¶ 25). The
            complaints, service requests, inspections and work orders do not provide written notice of the
            subject condition (id. ¶ 32). Moreover, the Big Apple Map does not contain any relevant symbols
            representing a sunken tree well (id. ¶ 51). The City argues that it did not cause or create the
            defective condition because the City inspected the work that was performed under the permits that
            were issued, and the work resulted in a “pass” or was unrelated to the subject tree well and soil
            (id. ¶¶ 70, 71). The City further proffers that there are no complaints or notices of violation issued
            to the City or contractor, and no evidence that the work performed at or near the subject location
            was unsatisfactory or caused the subject condition (id. ¶ 72).

                     Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that that there are issues of material fact
            regarding whether the City caused or created the depressed soil in the tree well. Plaintiff contends
            that the City has not proffered evidence that the condition of the tree well did not change over time
            from when the City conducted its inspection to when Plaintiff Arlene fell (NYSCEF Doc No. 451,
            Magrino affirmation ¶ 7). Plaintiff further contends that the City has not identified what qualifies
            as a passing inspection and whether the soil around the subject tree well was sufficient at the time
            of its inspection (id. ¶ 13).

                    In reply, the City argues that Plaintiffs fail to produce evidence sufficient to overcome the
            City’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. According to the City, the
            location of Plaintiff Arlene’s fall is not in dispute, and Plaintiffs have not come forward with any
            evidence to show that the City had notice or caused or created the uneven soil in the tree well
            (NYSCEF Doc No. 453, Herzog affirmation ¶ 4).

                                                      DISCUSSION

                     Pursuant to CPLR § 3212(b), a motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon
            all the papers and proofs submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently
            to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR §
            3212[b]). “The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate that there are no

             153525/2016 KREINDLER, ARLENE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                    Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 011

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 153525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 457                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

            material issues of fact in dispute, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” (Dallas-
            Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306 [1st Dept 2007]). The movant’s burden is “heavy,” and
            “on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
            moving party” (William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v Rabizadeh, 22 NY3d
            470, 475 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Upon proffer of evidence
            establishing a prima facie case by the movant, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment
            bears the burden of producing evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of
            material questions of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). To be a
            “material issue of fact” it “must be genuine, bona fide and substantial to require a trial” (Leumi
            Financial Corp. v Richter, 24 AD2d 855 [1st Dept 1965]). “A motion for summary judgment
            should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn
            from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Ruiz v Griffin, 71 AD3d 1112, 1115
            [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

                    It is well-settled that a tree well on the sidewalk constitutes an encumbrance thereon
            (Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640, 642–43 [2011]). To maintain a civil action against the
            City for personal injuries caused by a defective tree well, the City must have prior written notice
            of the defective condition and fail to remedy it (Admin Code § 7-201[c][2]; O'Donoghue v City of
            New York, 100 AD3d 402, 402 [2012]). Without the requisite notice, liability cannot be imposed
            (O'Donoghue, 100 AD3d at 402, supra).

                    In support of its motion, the City submits Plaintiff Arlene’s notice of claim, testimony, and
            photographs to establish that Plaintiff Arlene fell after stepping into a tree well on the sidewalk
            located at 1390 Third Avenue between East 79th and East 80th Street. The consistency of Plaintiff
            Arlene’s pleadings, testimony, and photographic evidence are sufficient to establish that Plaintiff
            Arlene fell in the tree well abutting 1390 Third Avenue. Plaintiffs do not dispute the location and
            cause of Plaintiff Arlene’s accident (NYSCEF Doc No. 451, Magrino affirmation ¶ 6). As such,
            there is no material issue of fact regarding the location and cause of Plaintiff’s accident.

                     The City has made a prima facie showing that it did not have notice of the sunken soil and
            that it did not cause the soil to become depressed from the sidewalk. The records proffered by the
            City are sufficient to establish that it did not have prior written notice that the soil in the subject
            tree well was not as high as the surrounding sidewalk. Plaintiffs do not advance any facts that
            contradict the City’s evidence and Plaintiffs’ argument that something could have transpired
            between the time the City inspected the tree well and Plaintiff Arlene’s fall is speculative, not
            supported by the record, and hence insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Hyland v. City of New
            York, 32 AD3d 822, 823 [2d Dept 2006]). As such, there is no issue of material fact that the City
            did not have notice of the subject condition. The City has also made a prima facie showing that it
            did not cause or create the subject condition. The records proffered by the City are sufficient to
            establish that it was not doing work to the subject tree well and did not cause or create the subject
            condition. Plaintiffs do not advance any facts that contradict this evidence or otherwise suggest
            that the City caused or created the depressed soil. As such there is no issue of material fact that the
            City did not cause or create the subject condition. Accordingly, as the City has established that
            Plaintiff fell in a tree well abutting 1390 Third Avenue and that the City did not have prior written
            notice that the soil was depressed from the sidewalk and did not cause the soil to become depressed

             153525/2016 KREINDLER, ARLENE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                     Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 011

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 153525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 457                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

            from the sidewalk, summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint and all cross-claims is
            warranted. It is therefore hereby

                   ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint and cross-
            claims are dismissed against the City; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant the City
            of New York and dismissing the claims and cross-claims made against the City in this action; and
            it is further

                   ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is further directed to transfer this matter to the
            inventory of a non-City part.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                     4/4/2024
                      DATE                                                           HASA A. KINGO, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      X   GRANTED             DENIED        GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:    X   INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             153525/2016 KREINDLER, ARLENE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                       Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 011

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]