From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barbara v. Washington Mut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2007
36 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-07513.

January 16, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 20, 2006, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Tomei Associates, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Eugene A. Tomei and Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellant.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Wendy Tobias of counsel), for respondent Washington Mutual.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent Trugreen Landcare, LLC.

Gorton Gorton, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas P. Gorton and John T. Gorton of counsel), for respondent Ferrandino Son, Inc.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Angiolillo, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants demonstrated "good cause" for the delay in filing their motions for summary judgment, since the note of issue was filed while there was significant discovery outstanding ( see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 129; Olivier v Rodney, 27 AD3d 631, 632; Herrera v Felice Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 723, 724).

Moreover, the defendants each established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by presenting evidence that the concrete parking barrier over which the plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous ( see Zimkind v Costco Wholesale Corp., 12 AD3d 593, 594; Bryant v Superior Computer Outlet, 5 AD3d 343, 344; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Bryant v Superior Computer Outlet, supra; cf. Cupo v Karfunkel, supra at 52).


Summaries of

Barbara v. Washington Mut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2007
36 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Barbara v. Washington Mut

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA SCLAFANI, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 16, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 290
829 N.Y.S.2d 553

Citing Cases

Pipitone v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

We reverse. While 7-Eleven had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner ( see Basso v…

Marie v. Breslin

The injured plaintiff and her husband subsequently commenced this action against several parties, including…