Court Opinion

ID: 9916542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:34.432436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:32.728776
License: Public Domain

Wright v New York City Hous. Auth.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34566(U)
                   December 19, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160535/2022
               Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne
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. 160535/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                        NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~-----
                                                                              PART 52
                                                                    Justice
            -------------------.X                                              INDEX NO.          160535/2022
             SCHANTA M. WRIGHT,
                                                                               MOTION DATE         09/01/2023
                                                  Plaintiff,
                                                                               MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                          - V -

             NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, CITY OF NEW
                                                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
             YORK
                                                                                       MOTION
                                                  Defendant
            -------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
            18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31
            were read on th is motion to/for                                    DISMISSAL

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                   This is an action by the plaintiff, Schanta M. Wright, to recover for personal injuries

            allegedly sustained on March 11, 2022, at the premises known as Drew-Hamilton Houses II

            located at 2680 Fredrick Douglass Boulevard, when plaintiff was caused to trip and fall inside

            Apartment #2K as a result of flooding from outside Apartment #2K that came into Apartment

            #2K.

                    Defendant, The City of New York ("City"), now moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR

            3211 § (a)(7), dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims for the failure to state a cause of

            action as against the City.

            CPLR § 321 l(a)(7):

                    On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 32 I I, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal

            construction, the facts alleged in the complaint accepted as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of

                            INCLUDES TRANSFER-REASSIGN
[* 1]                                                          1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160535/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           every favorable inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable

           legal theory (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994)). When evidentiary material is considered,

           the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has

           stated one (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268,275 [1977]).

           Claims:

                  Plaintiff is alleging claims of negligence based on a dangerous, defective, or hazardous

           condition existing on the premises, allegedly arising out of the City and co-defendant New York

           City Housing Authority's ("NYCHA") ownership, operation, control, management,

           maintenance, utilization, inspection, repair, and/or special use. "Because a finding of negligence

           must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged

           tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party" (Espinal v Melville Snow Contractors, Inc.,

           98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). Although a jury determines whether and to what extent a particular

           duty was breached, it is for the court first to determine whether a duty exists (Tagle v Jakob, 97

           NY2d 165, 168 [2001]). Liability for a dangerous or defective condition on property is

           predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control or special use of the property (Ruffino v New

           York City Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 817,818 [2d Dept 2008]). Where none are present, generally a

           party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly defective condition (Id.).

                  The City alleges that it did not own, operate, manage, maintain, control, or supervise the

           subject premises on the date of the incident, and therefore did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.

           The City offers the affidavit of David Schloss, Senior Title Examiner with the New York City

           Law Department, whose title search establishes that NYCHA, not the City, was the record fee

           title owner for the property (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19). Further, NYCHA, in its answer, admits that

                          INCLUDES TRANSFER-REASSIGN
[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160535/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            it owns, operates, and maintains the subject property (NYCSEF Doc. No. 2 ,r 5). Plaintiff, while

            opposing the motion, fails to present evidence in admissible form to demonstrate that a question

            of fact exists (see Constructamax, Inc. v Weber, 109 AD3d 574,575 [2d Dept 2013]). Therefore,

            the City has established that it may not be held liable as it did not own, occupy, control, or

            engage in a special use of the accident premises.

                      However, liability may also be imposed upon a party that creates a defective condition

            (Micek v Greek Orthodox Church of Our Savior, 139 AD3d 830,831 [2d Dept 2016]). Plaintiff,

            in opposition, contends that the City did not dispose of the entirety of her claims as it failed to

            establish that it did not cause or create a defect at the property. The City, in its reply papers,

            submitted an affidavit of Kerry Lowe, Senior City Planner for the New York City Department of

            Citywide Administrative Services, whose search revealed no records indicating, either directly as

            owner or by means of a license or lease, that the accident premises were leased, owned,

            occupied, maintained, managed, or controlled by the City (NYSCEF Doc. No. 30). The court

            may consider the paper submitted in reply as it responds to matters raised in the plaintiff's

            opposition (Boone v City a/New York, 92 AD3d 709, 710 [2d Dept 2012]). Plaintiff's allegation

            that, through discovery, she may establish that the City has a duty is unavailing (see Gruppo v

            London, 25 AD3d 486,487 [1st Dept 2006] [speculation that discovery may reveal grounds to

            establish liability is not sufficient to avoid summary judgment]). Accordingly, as the plaintiff's

            claim is flatly rejected by the City's evidentiary submissions, dismissal is appropriate (see Biondi

            v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81 [1st Dept 1999], affd, 94 NY2d 659 [2000];

            Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 115 AD3d 128, 135 [1st Dept

            2014]).

                             INCLUDES TRANSFER-REASSIGN
[* 3]                                                      3 of 4
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160535/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that the motion of defendant The City of New York to dismiss the complaint

           and any cross-claims herein is granted and the complaint and cross-claims are dismissed in their

           entirety as against said defendant; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the remainder of the action is severed and continued against the remaining

           defendants; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers

           filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

                   ORDERED that as the City of New York is no longer a party to this action, the matter

           should be removed from the City Part and the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this action to a

           General IAS Part; and it is further

                   ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice

           of entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who are directed

           to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further

                   ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

           Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

           Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-

           Filing" page on the court's website)].

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                   12/19/2023
                     DATE                                                       NICHOLAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL ~ISPOSITION
                                           GRANTED         □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

                            INCLUDES TRANSFER-REASSIGN
[* 4]                                                        4 of 4