Court Opinion

ID: 9930459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:07:53.745425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:05.522648
License: Public Domain

Olivo v Hillstone Rest. Group, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30367(U)
                    February 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154448/2018
                 Judge: Eric Schumacher
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. 154448/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY

            PRESENT:        HON. ERIC SCHUMACHER                                 PART     23M
                                                                     Justice
            -------------------X                                                 INDEX NO.              154448/2018
             FRANK MICHAEL OLIVO,
                                                                                 MOTION DATE             10/13/2021
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.             001
                                         -v-
             HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             a/k/a HILLSTONE'S RESTAURANT,
                                                                                          MOTION
                                               Defendant.

            -------------------X
            NYSCEF doc nos. 14-38 were read on this motion for summary judgment.

            Motion by defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. a/k/a Hillstone's Restaurant pursuant to
            CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied.

                                                            BACKGROUND

                   Plaintiff commenced this action on May 11, 2018, seeking to recover damages for
            personal injuries he allegedly sustained after falling on stairs at Hillstone's Restaurant
            (hereinafter Hillstone) located in Manhattan, New York.

                     According to plaintiffs testimony, plaintiff and his wife had met their adult children for a
            dinner reservation at Hillstone on Friday, February 9, 2018, at about 8:00 p.m. Plaintiff alleges
            that, as he was making his way to the hostess stand to notify the hostess that his party was ready
            to be seated, he was injured after falling on the two stairs inside the restaurant that separate the
            entry waiting area from the dining room. Plaintiff testified that Hillstone was "dark and the area
            of the floor and drop-off [were] not distinguishable" (NYSCEF doc no. 17 [Plaintiff EBT] at 20).
            Plaintiff further testified that, as he was walking toward the hostess stand, approximately 20 feet
            from where plaintiff was waiting with his family, he observed that the "[hostess stand] was
            surrounded by people" and "was not passable to the far left ... so [plaintiff] tried to go around
            the far right" (id. at 29). Plaintiff further testified that he then "tried to go through [the] people,
            but ... there were too many, so [he] tried to go around the end person, and there was a drop-off,
            and [he] fell" (jg_,_ at 30). Plaintiff recalled that he did not see the two-stair riser on his right, as he
            thought he was walking towards the hostess stand, not the stairs (see id. at 52), and with his right
            foot, he "stepped into air" and fell onto the floor below (id. at 53).

                    Plaintiff submits the expert opinion of consulting engineer Anthony Mellusi (hereinafter
            Mellusi), who conducted a site inspection ofHillstone on December 6, 2019. Mellusi reported
            that the light levels at foot level in certain spots along the length of the stairs were in violation of
            NYC Building Code Sec 27-381(A) and found that the handrails as well as the metal nosing on
            each step did not provide adequate visual cues of the presence of steps. Mellusi also concluded
             154448/2018 OLIVO v HILLSTONE REST. GROUP, INC. a/k/a HILLSTONE'S RESTAURANT                Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 001

                                                              1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154448/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

           that plaintiff did not have an adequate visual warning that there were steps curving inward as he
           walked toward the hostess stand through a Friday night crowd of waiting patrons that blocked
           the metal nosing and handrails from plaintiffs view (see NYSCEF doc no. 30 [aff ofMellusi]).

                   Defendant's expert, Douglas W. Peden (hereinafter Peden), also performed a site
           inspection of Hillstone on December 6, 2019, and disagrees with Mellusi' s findings and
           determinations. Peden ultimately concluded that the lighting, handrails, and nosing are each
           independently adequate to identify the existence of the stairs, that that the two-stair riser is
           reasonably conspicuous, and that an approaching pedestrian would have sufficient notice of the
           two-stair riser. Peden further concluded that there was adequate space at the bottom of the
           entrance stair to accommodate guests waiting to be seated for dinner and that the layout of the
           area around the hostess stand did not pose an unreasonable safety concern. (see NYSECF doc no.
           23 [aff of Peden).

                   General Counsel for defendant, W. Glenn Viers, Esq. (hereinafter Viers), states that his
           review of defendant's records from the time Hillstone opened in 1997 to present reveals that
           neither the Fire Department of New York (hereinafter FDNY) nor the New York City
           Department of Buildings (hereinafter the DOB) "has ever issued a building code violation
           relating to the stairs where [plaintiff] fell" (see NYSCEF doc no. 22 [aff of Viers]).

                    Executive General Manager Joel Halperin (hereinafter Halperin), employed with
           Hillstone since 2011, testified that he was not aware of any other falls or accidents on the stairs
           prior to plaintiffs fall, nor did he have any knowledge of any complaints regarding the stairs
           during his employment with defendant (see NYSCEF doc no. 18 [aff of Halperin]). Similarly,
           Erin Giordano (hereinafter Giordano), who was working as a senior greeter at Hillstone the night
           of the accident and witnessed plaintiff's fall, testified that, in the three years she had worked at
           Hillstone prior to plaintiff's fall, no one had ever fallen on the stairs, nor was she ever advised of
           any such accident occurring previously. Giordano further testified that, while she did not recall
           how many people were around the hostess stand at the time plaintiff fell, she did recall that
           Friday nights at Hillstone are busy ( see NYSCEF doc no. 19 [aff of Giordano]).

                    Defendant now moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the
           complaint, arguing that the two-stair riser was not defective as a matter of law and contending
           that it owed no duty to plaintiff as it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of a
           defective condition.

                                                      DISCUSSION

                   "To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of
           action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his
           favor, and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form" (Zuckerman v City
           of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). "The
           proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to
           judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact
           from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). "Failure to
           make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing

            154448/2018 OLIVO v HILLSTONE REST. GROUP, INC. a/k/a HILLSTONE'S RESTAURANT           Page2 of4
            Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154448/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            papers" (id.). "On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most
            favorable to the non-moving party" (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]
            [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). In the presence of a genuine issue of material
            fact, a motion for summary judgment must be denied (see Ro tuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d
            223,231 [1978]; Grossman v Amalgamated Hous. Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226 [1st Dept 2002]).

                    Property owners and licensed occupiers owe "a duty to exercise reasonable care in
            maintaining their [premises] in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances" (see
            generally Powers v 31 E 31 LLC, 24 NY3d 84, 94 [2014] [internal citations and quotations
            omitted]). This duty requires that patrons be warned of "latent hazard[ s]" on the premises but not
            "open and obvious" dangers (see Tagle v Jakob, 97 NY2d 165, 169 [2001]) that "can readily be
            observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses" (see Voss v City of NY, 213
            AD3d 477,477 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Therefore, a
            court may grant summary judgment on the ground that an alleged condition was both open and
            obvious, and as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see Broodie v Gibco Enters., Ltd., 67
            AD3d 418, 418 [1st Dept 2009]). "However, a step may be dangerous where the conditions
            create optical confusion - the illusion of a flat surface, visually obscuring the step" (Langer v 116
            Lexington Ave., Inc., 92 AD3d 597, 599 [1st Dept 2012] [internal citations and quotations
            omitted]).

                     Here, defendant has failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing a lack of dispute
            of material facts as to whether crowding at Hillstone caused the stairs to be in a dangerous or
            defective condition and whether defendant violated any duty it owed to plaintiff in relation to the
            stairs. While evidence has been presented that plaintiff was looking straight ahead at the time of
            his fall, this alone does not support defendant's request for summary judgment within the facts of
            this case. "Whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the
            surrounding circumstances, [as a] condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making
            reasonable use of his senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is
            obscured by crowds or the plaintiffs attention is otherwise distracted" (Mauriello v Port Auth. of
            N.Y. & N.J., 8 AD3d 200,200 [1st Dept 2004] [internal citations omitted]).

                    Defendant argues that plaintiffs theory that crowding caused the stairs to become a
            hazard is prohibited, as plaintiff failed to raise that theory in any prior pleadings, and introducing
            a new theory of the case is not appropriate or admissible in an opposition to a motion for
            summary judgment (see Keilany B. v City of New York, 122 AD3d 424,425 [1st Dept 2014]).
            While the "[ c ]ourt may search the record to find an issue of fact to preclude summary judgment,
            [it] cannot search the record to support a new theory ofrecovery that was never remotely put
            forth by the plaintiff' (Biondi v Behrman, 149 AD3d 562, 564 [1st Dept 2017]). While the First
            Department found that the new theory posited by the plaintiff in Biondi was "never mentioned in
            the pleadings or at depositions" and was "not related to the claims in the pleadings" (see id. at
            564), the instant matter is distinguishable from the facts of Biondi.

                    Here, plaintiff testified in detail at his deposition that crowding around the hostess stand
            contributed to his fall. Similarly, Giordano testified that Friday nights at Hillstone are busy and
            that she could not recall how many people were in front of the hostess stand at the time plaintiff
            fell. This testimony was elicited more than two years before defendant filed this motion. Further,

             154448/2018 OLIVO v HILLSTONE REST. GROUP, INC. a/k/a HILLSTONE'S RESTAURANT           Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154448/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

           plaintiffs bill of particulars, verified on September 26, 2018, asserts, among other things, that
           defendant failed to maintain the stairs in a safe condition, in that defendant failed to provide safe
           passage for the public, endangered the safety of the public entering the restaurant, failed to
           properly supervise, and failed to exercise due care.

                   When viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court finds
           defendant's argument unavailing that plaintiff has asserted crowding as a new theory. Defendant
           had ample opportunity to explore plaintiffs theory of crowding during the course of discovery
           and given that defendant cites to plaintiffs testimony regarding crowding in their moving papers
           and specifically had their expert include findings related to the same, defendant cannot now
           claim that crowding is a new theory that defendant would be prejudiced or surprised by, but a
           related claim about which defendant was on notice. As such, whether the stairs constituted a
           hazard because of crowding and whether defendant violated any duty it owed to plaintiff in
           relation to such crowding of the stairs are issues of fact to be determined at trial.

                                                        CONCLUSION

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that the motion by defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. a/k/a
           Hillstone's Restaurant pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
           is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERED that, within five days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with
           notice of entry on defendant.

                   The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    2/2/2024
                     DATE                                              ~ER,J.S.C.

                                    ~
            CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        GRANTED          0    DENIED     GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

            154448/2018 OLIVO v HILLSTONE REST. GROUP, INC. a/k/a HILLSTONE'S RESTAURANT           Page4 of4
            Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                        4 of 4