From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fernandez v. Castillo

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 24, 2018
165 A.D.3d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2016–13022 Index No. 21219/12

10-24-2018

Jorge Castillo FERNANDEZ, appellant, v. Juan Jose CASTILLO, respondent.

Pen~a & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx, N.Y. (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant. Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jennine A. Gerrard and Michael Driscoll of counsel), for respondent.


Pen~a & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx, N.Y. (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant.

Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jennine A. Gerrard and Michael Driscoll of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Ralph T. Gazzillo, J.), dated November 1, 2016. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

On October 23, 2011, the plaintiff agreed to help the defendant, his brother, remove a tree from the defendant's property. The parties decided that while the plaintiff would cut a particular branch with a chainsaw, the defendant would pull the branch away from his neighbor's property with a rope. After the plaintiff tied one end of the rope to the branch, the defendant tied the other end of the rope to the rear bumper of the plaintiff's truck. Once the plaintiff began cutting the branch, the defendant applied pressure to the rope. The plaintiff was struck and injured by the branch when it broke.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"A landowner owes a duty to another on his [or her] land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury" ( Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d 918, 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304 ; see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ). "Where an injury results ‘not from any unsafe condition defendant left uncorrected on his [or her] land, but as a direct result of the course plaintiff ... decided to pursue ... the law impose[s] no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his [or her] own actions’ " ( Marino v. Bingler, 60 A.D.3d 645, 647, 874 N.Y.S.2d 542, quoting Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d at 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304 ; see Poole v. Ogiejko, 62 A.D.3d 977, 977–978, 880 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Captanian v. Schramm, 33 A.D.3d 834, 835, 823 N.Y.S.2d 217 ). Thus, "in the absence of some showing that defendant's conduct ... was causally related to the accident" ( Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d at 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304 ), the defendant cannot be held liable (see Garvin v. Wojcik, 138 A.D.3d 1488, 1489, 31 N.Y.S.3d 719 ).

Here, the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant's evidentiary submissions in support of his motion, including his own deposition testimony, revealed triable issues of fact as to the degree of his active participation in the planning and performance of the tree-cutting activity and whether his actions were causally related to the plaintiff's injuries (see Newman v. RCPI Landmark Props., LLC, 28 N.Y.3d 1032, 1034, 42 N.Y.S.3d 668, 65 N.E.3d 698 ; Garvin v. Wojcik, 138 A.D.3d at 1489, 31 N.Y.S.3d 719 ; see generally Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d at 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fernandez v. Castillo

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 24, 2018
165 A.D.3d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Fernandez v. Castillo

Case Details

Full title:Jorge Castillo Fernandez, appellant, v. Juan Jose Castillo, respondent.

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2018

Citations

165 A.D.3d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
165 A.D.3d 1044
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7095

Citing Cases

De Leo v. Bauman

The owner's manual for the subject Pinnacle Spas hot tub warns, under the heading "To Reduce Injury," that…