Court Opinion

ID: 9954300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:52.19031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.863443
License: Public Domain

Saminion v 581-583 Realty LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30922(U)
                     March 19, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
         Docket Number: Index No. 9802/2014
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
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.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                        INDEX NO. 9802/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TEP.M: COMMERCIAL 8
           - . ------·--- ---------- ----· ·--- ·-.-.- .. ----·--·-x
           JUAN LUIS SANCHEZ SAMINION,
                                                      Plaintiff,          Decision and order

                           - against -                                    Index No·. 9802/2014

           581-583 REALTY LLC, 2412 CHURCH LLC, AQUA
           PHYSICAL THERAPY P. C. and SAIF U. [JIN,
                                           Defendant s,                        March 19, 2024
           ------- ·--- ..--.- ·-- :-----·-·- .. -- .·-·--·-.----- -.-x
           AQUA PHYSICAL THERAPY P.C. and SAIF u. DIN,
                                          Third-Par ty Plaintiff ,

                             -against-

           THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
                                                      Third-Par ty Defendant ,
           --------- ---- ·-------- ··--------- - ··-·-------.x
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                      Motion Seq. #19

                The plaintiff has ~bV~d pursuant tb CPLR §2221 .seeking to

           renew a decision and order dated January 16, 2019 d,enying

           plaintiff 's cross-mot ion seeking summary judgement ;                The motion

           is opposed.       Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments

           held.    After reviewing all the arguments this court now :makes the

           following determina tion.

                   As r~corded in the prior order the plaintiff alleges he

           sustained injuries when on Marc-h 11, 2014, he tripped and fell ori

           a sidewalk in front of premises located at 581-583 Fifth Avenue

           in Kings County.         581-583 RealtyLLC , 2412 Church LLC moved

           seeking surrtrrtary judgement on the grounds that as the owner and

           manager of the_prope rty they were not responsib le for any

           defects.      That motion was denied.            Of relevance , the plaintiff

                                                     1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                INDEX NO. 9802/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

           filed a cross-mot ion seeking summary judgement that the

           defendant s had prior notice of the alleged defect as a matter of

           law.   That cross-mot ion w:as denied on the grounds the cross-

          motion was filed late and could not be considere d.           Furthermo re,

           the decision noted that \'the question of prior notice in a

           negligence action is almost always a question of fact which

           should be determine d by a jµry''        (see, Decision, January 16, 2019

           [N'YSCEF Doc.   No.   48 J) .   Following this· determina tion the note of

           issue was vacated.        On February 18, 2020 the City of New York

           responded to discovery requests and those responses form the

           basis of the motion to renew.          Those responses contain previously

           unknown informatio n which the plaintiff now argues conclusiv ely

           establish the ownEff had prior notice of the defect.          This notice

           is in the form of a . 311 telephone call, an inspection of the

           location by the City and a violation to the owner of the defect

           and an acknowledg ment of the defect by the owner.          The owner

           opposes the motion arguing the informatio rt is not new at all.

                                           conclusion s of La~

                       It is true that generally , a motion to renew must contain

           evidence that existed at the time the original motion was filed

           but was unknown to the moving party (Brooklyn Welding Corp .• v.

           Chin, 236 AD2d 392, 653 NYS2d 6:31 [2d Dept., 1997]) ,          However,

            that rule has been defined as \flexible' and a party may fil,e a

                                                    2

                                                  2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                  INDEX NO. 9802/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

          motion to ren.ew even if the .e,vidence was- known, at the tirrtl;:!: of the

          original motion provided the patty offers. a re.asona:ble

          exp1ari.atiort. ·why the additional facts were not incl1,1d_ed within the

          9-rigin.a_l mo"t,i.on (.P·roqre·ssive Northe·a:ste·rn Insurance. Company v.

          Frenkel; 8AD3d 390,777 NYS2d 652 [2d Dept., 2004]).

                I-n the prior motion seeking_ summary judgement tp.e plaintiff

          po.sse.ss·ed the violation issu_ed by the City copq_iarning· the

          sidew_alk defect     and such violation was referenced within the
          -report of pl.aintiff' s expert. .Harold Krongeib (s·ee, Af.i:i~m_ation iri

          Support of C:i:-o!3s-M.otion [NY$CEF Doc_;_ No. 63]) .    The plaintiff

          argues that while tha:t document was its posses•sion m·o.re

          :i,nforniation about notice wps -only obtained after the: ·moti_on.- fo·r

           summary judgement was fi.led including records of a 311 call

           regarding the, condi tiort ·of the pro}Je;rty, records created .by the-

          .City f·ollowin_g the inspection. -antj pl;'oof the violation was ¢:ailed

           to the defendant.

                 However-, nohe of that in:formation is non-·c-1,1mul-ati ve ..evidence

           tJ::).at :would, require the court_ t:o alter its previous de.terminatio n

           regarding notice.       .The- violation issued by   th~ City, which the··

           plainti£f pos_sessedan d used in the mciti-on; is the culmination of

           all the ancillary irtformati-o.rt th·e plainti.ff now seeks in .support

           of tl:le mot.ion   to rene-w.   Th us, the 311 ca 11 prompted the

           investigation which then led to an in~pection an_d finally the

           violation.    There Ci3-n be no basis to argue the 311 call and the

                                                  3

                                                 3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                            INDEX NO. 9802/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                         investiga tive reports created as a result of that call establish

                         notice where the actual violation was held insufficie nt to

                         establish such notice..     Indeed, the new evide:nce the plaintiff

                         seeks to introdllce cannot be viewed in isolation .     The new

                         evidence only provides backgroun d informatio n and serve to

                         endorse the subsequen t violation issued.      Therefore , this

                         · evidence does not tend to offer any informatio n not already

                         previousl y offered.     It is well settled that a motion to renew

                         may riot be ba:sed on cumulativ e informatio n already submitted

                          {Varela v. Clark, 134 AD3d 925, 21 NYS3d 331 [2d Dept., 2015]).

                         Consequen tly, substanti ally the same evidence "with some

                          elaboratio n and in slightly greater detail" is insufficie nt to

                          successfu lly file a motion to renew (Construct amax, Inc. v. Dodge

                          Chamberli n Luzine Weber, Associate s Architect s, LLP; 157 AD3d

                          852, 7 0 NYS3d 521 2d Dept. , 2018] ) ·•

                               As noted, the informatio ri sought to be introduced does not

                          help to establish conclusiv e proof of prior notice that iS

                          different from evidence already submitted .     Therefore , the motion

                          seeking 1ic:ave to renew iB denied.

                               Concerning any arguments the owner had construct ive notice

                          of the defect, such argument is really a motion to reargue the

                          prior determina tion.    A motion to reargue must be based upon the

                          fact the court overlooke d or misappreh ended fact or law or for

                          some other reason mistakenl y arrived at in its earlier decision

                                                               4

                                             4 of 5 ------ ------ ------ ------
                     ·---·-- ------ ------ ------
[* 4]   ..............
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                               INDEX NO. 9802/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

           (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., v. Russo, 170 AD3d 952, 96

          NYS3d 617    [2d Dept., 20191) .   The plaintiff has faileci to present

           any evidence warranting a reconsideration o.f the earlier

           determination that there are questions of fact whether the ciuty

           to maintain the sidewalk was      "completely transferred to the

           tenant'' and whether the owner had such constructive notice of arry

           work performed by the tenant,
                 Therefore, the motion seeking, essentially,      to reargue that

           determination and any other issue of liability is denied.

                  So ordered.
                                       ENTER:

           DATED: March 19, 2024
                  Brooklyn NY                Hon. Leon Ruchelsrnari
                                             .JSC

                                                  5

                                                5 of 5
[* 5]