From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chow v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist. 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Nov 25, 2020
188 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2017–12697 Index No. 6693/15

11-25-2020

Pi Chu CHOW, Respondent, v. VALLEY STREAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 30, et al., Defendants, Crane's Tree & Shrub Service, Inc., Appellant.

Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for appellant. Jerald D. Werlin, Flushing, N.Y. (Jordan S. Hoch of counsel), for respondent.


Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for appellant.

Jerald D. Werlin, Flushing, N.Y. (Jordan S. Hoch of counsel), for respondent.

JOSEPH J. MALTESE, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Crane's Tree & Shrub Service, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Anthony L. Parga, J.), entered November 17, 2017. The order denied the motion of the defendant Crane's Tree & Shrub Service, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Crane's Tree & Shrub Service, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

On May 16, 2014, the defendant Crane's Tree & Shrub Service, Inc. (hereinafter Crane's), entered into a contract with the defendant Valley Stream Union Free School District 30 (hereinafter the school district) to remove two trees on the premises of the Forest Road School. The trees were removed sometime between May 16, 2014, and June 1, 2014, when Crane's invoiced the school district for, inter alia, the removal of the two trees.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained on September 3, 2014, when she tripped and fell due to a hole located on the premises of the Forest Road School that was approximately 12 inches in diameter and approximately 6 to 8 inches deep. The plaintiff alleged that the hole in which she tripped resulted from the negligent removal of one of the subject trees by Crane's. Crane's moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and Crane's appeals.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, Crane's demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). Crane's did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff solely by virtue of its contract with the school district (see Church v. Callanan Indus. , 99 N.Y.2d 104, 111, 752 N.Y.S.2d 254, 782 N.E.2d 50 ; Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs. , 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 ). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Crane's demonstrated conclusively " ‘that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by negligently creating the dangerous or defective condition complained of’ " ( Union v. Excel Commercial Maintenance , 185 A.D.3d 869, 869, 125 N.Y.S.3d 305, quoting Bruce v. Edgewater Indus. Park, LLC , 169 A.D.3d 753, 754, 92 N.Y.S.3d 383 ). In support of its motion, Crane's submitted, among other things, evidence that, after the work was completed, there were no holes in the area where the trees were removed that were approximately 12 inches in diameter and 6 to 8 inches deep (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's theory that Crane's created a dangerous condition in removing the subject tree was speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lima v. Village of Garden City , 131 A.D.3d 947, 948, 16 N.Y.S.3d 249 ).

In light of our determination, we need not address Crane's remaining contention.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted Crane's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

MALTESE, J.P., DILLON, LEVENTHAL and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chow v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist. 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Nov 25, 2020
188 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Chow v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist. 30

Case Details

Full title:Pi Chu Chow, respondent, v. Valley Stream Union Free School District 30…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Nov 25, 2020

Citations

188 A.D.3d 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
188 A.D.3d 1277
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 7112

Citing Cases

Cali Dev. Corp. v. Church Side Realty, LLC

Church Side's contention that the cause of the leak was actually a broken sewer pipe located under a floor…

Aloi v. Dubriske

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's theory that the…