Opinion
192 CA 14-01391
03-20-2015
Michelle CASHION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Alexander T. BAJOREK and Judith Bajorek, Defendants–Appellants.
Schnitter Ciccarelli Mills PLLC, East Amherst (Brittany A. Nasradinaj of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Nicholas, Perot, Smith, Bernhardt & Zosh, P.C., Akron (Michaelangelo J. Cieri of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Schnitter Ciccarelli Mills PLLC, East Amherst (Brittany A. Nasradinaj of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.Nicholas, Perot, Smith, Bernhardt & Zosh, P.C., Akron (Michaelangelo J. Cieri of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell from outdoor steps at the home she rented from defendants. Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
Contrary to defendants' contentions, we conclude that there are several triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment. First, there is an issue of fact whether they maintained the premises at issue in a reasonably safe condition (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). We note that the allegedly open and obvious condition of the steps does not absolve defendants of their duty to keep the stairs in a safe condition but, instead, bears only on plaintiff's comparative fault (see Landahl v. City of Buffalo, 103 A.D.3d 1129, 1131, 959 N.Y.S.2d 306 ; Verel v. Ferguson Elec. Constr. Co., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 1154, 1156, 838 N.Y.S.2d 280 ). Second, there is an issue of fact whether any breach of that duty “was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” (Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 314–315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666, rearg. denied 52 N.Y.2d 784, 436 N.Y.S.2d 622, 417 N.E.2d 1010 ; see Hahn v. Tops Mkts., LLC, 94 A.D.3d 1546, 1548, 943 N.Y.S.2d 361 ; Prystajko v. Western N.Y. Pub. Broadcasting Assn., 57 A.D.3d 1401, 1403, 871 N.Y.S.2d 556 ). Finally, there are issues of fact whether defendants created the allegedly dangerous condition (cf. Navetta v. Onondaga Galleries LLC, 106 A.D.3d 1468, 1469, 964 N.Y.S.2d 835 ; see generally Ohanessian v. Chase Manhattan Realty Leasing Corp., 193 A.D.2d 567, 567, 598 N.Y.S.2d 204 ), and whether defendants had constructive notice of that condition (see generally Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; Wilson v. 100 Carlson Park, LLC, 113 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 977 N.Y.S.2d 655 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.