Opinion
8250 Index 160795/14
02-14-2019
Despina FILARAKOS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York (Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for appellants. Patterson & Sciarrino, LLP, Bayside (Marc D. Citrin of counsel), for respondent.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, New York (Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for appellants.
Patterson & Sciarrino, LLP, Bayside (Marc D. Citrin of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 27, 2018, which, upon reargument, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff, who was volunteering at defendant church, was injured when, while decorating the church for Easter, she fell from the stepladder she was using. Defendants established that they did not supervise or control the means and methods by which plaintiff and her fellow volunteers decorated (see Stringer v. Musacchia, 11 N.Y.3d 212, 217, 869 N.Y.S.2d 362, 898 N.E.2d 545 [2008] ; Lichtenthal v. St. Mary's Church, 166 A.D.2d 873, 874, 561 N.Y.S.2d 134 [4th Dept. 1990] ).
Defendants also established that they neither created the alleged defective condition or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective stepladder (see Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp., 84 A.D.3d 516, 517, 923 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121, 129–131, 867 N.Y.S.2d 123 [2d Dept. 2008] ). Defendants presented testimony that the stepladder had been used many times over the years without incident, and further, that there had been no complaints regarding the use of the stepladder. Thus, there is nothing in the record to show that defendants were aware of the existence of any defect prior to the accident (see Kesselbach v. Liberty Haulage, 182 A.D.2d 741, 582 N.Y.S.2d 739 [2d Dept. 1992] ). As to constructive notice on the part of defendants, plaintiff testified that when she initially took the stepladder it appeared to be secure. Plaintiff's expert opined that the alleged defect was latent and not readily discernable. Thus, there is nothing in the record to show that defendants had constructive notice of any defect prior to the accident (see Chowdhury, 57 A.D.3d at 129–131, 867 N.Y.S.2d 123 ).