Court Opinion

ID: 9916481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:42.430359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:35.970160
License: Public Domain

Reid v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 30011(U)
                     January 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 400032/2014
                   Judge: Judy H. Kim
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. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. JUDY H. KIM                                  PART                         05RCP
                                                                 Justice
           --------------------.X                                            INDEX NO.            400032/2014
            MARGARET REID,
                                                                             MOTION DATE          05/17/2023
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                             MOTION SEQ. NO.          005
                                       - V -

            THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MADISON SQUARE GARDEN,
            L.P., MSG HOLDINGS, L.P., THE MADISON SQUARE
                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
            GARDEN COMPANY, MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
            CENTER, INC.,DEFOE CORP.,                                                 MOTION

                                               Defendant.
           --------------------X
           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
           44,45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51,52, 53, 54, 59,67
           Were read on this motion to/for                     SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

                  Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by defendants Madison Square Garden L.P.,

           MSG Holdings, L.P., the Madison Square Garden Company, and Madison Square Garden Center,

           Inc.'s (collectively, "MSG"), pursuant to CPLR §3212, for summary judgment dismissing

           plaintiffs complaint as against it is denied for the reasons set forth below.

                  On September 26, 2012, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that on October 26, 2011,
                                                                                                               I

           she tripped and fell on a raised portion of the "sidewalk, path, and/or walkway" in front of

           Pennsylvania Station, specifically, at the northeast corner of West 31st Street, near its intersection

           with Eighth Avenue, New York, New York, sustaining injuries (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 42 [Bill of

           Particulars at 115-6]) and 43 [Compl. at 1114-20]). Plaintiff asserts negligence claims against the

            400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                       Page 1 of7
            Motion No. 005

[* 1]                                                       1 of 7
                                                                                                           INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           City of New York and MSG 1, alleging that these defendants caused and created the defect at issue

           and failed to remedy same despite having actual or constructive notice thereof and, as pertinent

           here, that MSG violated Administrative Codes §§19-138, 19-146, and 19-152 (NYSCEF Doc.

           Nos. 42 [Bill of Particulars at ~14] and 43 [Compl. at ~~23-58]).

                  · On October 22, 2012, the City interposed an answer asserting crossclaims against MSG for

           contribution and indemnification (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 [Answer at ~13]).

                   At her examination before trial ("EB T"), plaintiff testified that, after crossing east on

           Eighth Avenue to proceed into the Pennsylvania Station entrance located at the comer of West

           31st Street and Eighth Avenue, she stepped onto the sidewalk and immediately fell:

                   Q Did you step up onto the sidewalk before your accidenthappened at that point?

                   A When I went to, I went to step up on the sidewalk, and it was something I don't
                   know what was there, and I just fell.

                   Q When you stepped on the sidewalk at31st Street and 8th Avenue, was there like
                   a sloped ramp so that people like with wheelchairs could go on, a little cutout?

                   A I don't know what that was but it was something there that like maybe the
                   sidewalk was up a little bit.

                   Q After you put your left foot up, was your right foot still in the roadway?

                   A I don't remember. All I know I was on the ground.

                   Q After you put your left foot up when you came from the roadway, how many
                   steps did you take before you fell?

           1 Plaintiff also asserts negligence claims against defendant Defoe Corp. However, Defoe Corp. was granted summary

           judgment pursuant to a decision and order dated March 28, 2019 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 31 ).
            400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                 Page 2 of 7
            Motion No. 005

[* 2]                                                          2 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                  A I don't remember.

                  Q Did you take more than one or did you fall as soon as you stepped up?

                  A As soon as I stepped up I fell.

                  Q When you put your left foot up right before you fell, did you feel it hit anything?

                  A Yeah, the ground.

                  Q Did you feel your right foot hit anything?

                  A I don't remember, but all I remember is I remember I was on the ground.

                  Q So the direction you were walking when you fell, was that towards Penn Station,
                  or were you walking was Penn Station on your right or Penn Station on your left?

                  A No, I was going straight to Penn Station. I was going straight through the doors
                  like I normally go straight through the doors, and when I went to get on the, to go
                  on the sidewalk, that is when I, something I don't know what it was there, it was
                  either, it was up a little bit, the sidewalk was up a little bit and I fell. Next thing I
                  know I was on the ground.

                  Q When you say the sidewalk was up a little bit, how do you know that?

                  A I guess because it looked like it was up a little bit there.

                  Q Did you see that before you fell, while you were falling, after you fell?

                  A While I was falling yes, when I was falling it looked like the sidewalk and then
                  all I did was went down like that.

                  Q While you were falling what did you see?

                  A Nothing but the ground.

                  Q You said while you were falling you saw it was up a little bit; tell me exactly
                  what you saw while you were falling.

                  A It looks like maybe the sidewalk was up a little bit one part was a little bit higher
                  than the other part.

            400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                         Page 3 of 7
            Motion No. 005

[* 3]                                                     3 of 7
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                    Q How high?

                    A ... Maybe about, maybe I couldn't say like a few, little inch, [an] inch or two or·
                    so from the ground.

                    Q An inch?

                    A Or two.

                    Q How did that cause you to fall?

                    A I guess when I went to step up and I must have, I don't know, my I don't know
                    how it made me fall, I really don't. I don't understand how I fell. All I know is that
                    I fell.

          (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 [Reid EBT at pp. 119~128] [emphasis added]).

                    No photographs identifying the alleged defect or its precise location were marked at

          plaintiff's EBT or submitted in support or in opposition to the instant motion.

                    MSG now moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all

          crossclaims as against it, arguing 2 that it cannot be held liable for negligence in this action because

          plaintiff's EBT testimony establishes that she cannot identify the defective condition that

          precipitated her fall without resorting to speculation.

                    Plaintiff opposes MSG's motion, arguing that plaintiff has sufficiently identified that a

          raised portion of the sidewa.lk caused her accident and that MSG has failed to establish that it did

          not exercise any control over the subject sidewalk.

          2
            The Court rejects MSG assertion that it can be determined, at this juncture, that Administrative Codes §§ 19-138 and
          19-146 are inapplicable in this case. To the extent that Administrative Code §-l 12[13]'s definition of "street"
          encompasses a sidewalk, Administrative Codes§ 19-138 and 19-146, which make it "unlawful for any person to break
          or otherwise injure any street" or cause any part of the street to be raised without permission, respectively, are
          applicable (See Crafts v City of New York, 2008 NY Slip Op 30823[U], *9-10 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]).
              400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                  Page4of7
              Motion No. 005

[* 4]                                                            4 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                                     DISCUSSION

                  "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 demonstrate the

          absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial

          of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. Once this showing has been

          made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to

          produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues

          of fact which require a trial of the action" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp .. 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]

           [internal citations omitted]).

                  As an initial matter, the Court notes that MSG takes no position as to whether it owned the

          portion of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, whether it lacked actual or constructive notice of any

          defective condition on that sidewalk, or whether it caused or created any such defect. Rather, MSG

          argues only that it cannot be held liable in this action because plaintiff cannot identify the defective

          condition that precipitated her fall. The Court disagrees.

                  While "[i]t is well settled that a defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of

          law when a plaintiff provides testimony that he or she is unable to identify the defect that caused

          his or her injury" (Siegel v City of New York, 86 AD3d 452, 454-455 [1st Dept 2011]), plaintiff

           is "not required to prove precisely which particular defect in the sidewalk caused her to fall in

           order to avoid summary judgment" (Kovach v PJA, LLC, 128 AD3d 445, 445 [1st Dept 2015]

           [internal quotations omitted]) or identify the precise location of her fall (See Tomaino v 209 E.

           84th St. Corp .. 72 AD3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 201 O]). Rather, plaintiff need only "demonstrate a

           causal nexus between a defect in the sidewalk ... and her fall" to defeat summary judgment

            400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                         Page 5 of 7
            Motion No. 005

[* 5]                                                     5 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           (Kovach v PJA, LLC, 128 AD3d 445,445 [1st Dept 2015]).

                  Plaintiff has satisfied this standard. Her EBT testimony that, upon stepping onto the

          sidewalk at the comer of West 31st Street and Eighth Avenue, she fell and then noticed that the

          "sidewalk was up a little bit," is sufficient to identify the defective condition that caused her to fall

          (See Kovach v PJA, LLC, 128 AD3d 445,445 [1st Dept 2015] [plaintiff's testimony that her foot

          hit a "bump" in the sidewalk sufficient to identify defective condition that precipitated her fall

          despite being unable to identify same in photographs]; see also Cherry v Daytop Vil.. Inc., 41

          AD3d 130, 131 [1st Dept 2007]; Martinez v City of New York, 190 AD3d 561,561 [1st Dept

          2021 ]). To the extent plaintiff vacillated, during this testimony, between stating that she did not

          know what precipitated her fall and attributing her fall to a raised sidewalk, this "inconsistenc[yJ

          in plaintiff's testimony as to the cause of her fall present[s] credibility issues for the jury's

          determination" (Martinez v City of New York, 190 AD3d 561,561 [1st Dept 2021]).

                 Accordingly, it is

                 ORDERED that the Madison Square Garden LP., MSG Holdings, L.P ., the Madison

          Square Garden Company, and Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.'s motion for summary

          judgment is denied; and it is further

                 ORDERED that, within fifteen days of the date of this decision and order, counsel for

          plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, on defendants as well

          as the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's

          Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); 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

           400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                          Page 6of7
           Motion No. 005

[* 6]                                                     6 of 7
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 400032/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 68                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

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

          Filing" page on this Court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).

                  This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                   1/2/2024
                    DATE

                                   ~
           CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NO   INAL DISPOSITION

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

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

                                                                                                       Page7 of7
           400032/2014 REID, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK
           Motion No. 005

[* 7]                                                      7 of 7'
                                                                      I