Opinion
2013-04211
06-10-2015
Judy GUZMAN, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.
John Corcos Lévy, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Valerie Figueredo of counsel), for respondent.
John Corcos Lévy, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Valerie Figueredo of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated February 28, 2013, which, upon a decision of the same court dated January 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the claim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant allegedly sustained personal injuries when the glass in a window at the Taconic Correctional Facility (hereinafter the facility), which was owned and operated by the State of New York, “popped,” causing her hand to go “through the window.” At a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the claimant conceded that the window was not defective. The Court of Claims determined after the trial, in effect, that the State did not have a duty to warn the claimant and other inmates not to touch the window, because the window did not constitute a dangerous condition. Judgment was entered in favor of the State and against the claimant, dismissing the claim. The claimant appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v. State of New York, 82 A.D.3d 827, 827, 918 N.Y.S.2d 206, quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; see Jones v. State of New York, 124 A.D.3d 599, 600, 1 N.Y.S.3d 293 ).
As a landowner, the State has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 240–241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ; Quintanilla v. State of New York, 94 A.D.3d 846, 847, 941 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; Clairmont v. State of New York, 277 A.D.2d 767, 768, 716 N.Y.S.2d 760 ; Bowers v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 760, 760, 660 N.Y.S.2d 751 ). “[A] landowner's duty to warn of a latent, dangerous condition on [its] property is a natural counterpart to [its] duty to maintain [its] property in a reasonably safe condition” (Martino v. Stolzman, 18 N.Y.3d 905, 908, 941 N.Y.S.2d 28, 964 N.E.2d 399 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fernandez v. Rutman, 120 A.D.3d 545, 546, 990 N.Y.S.2d 845 ; Doyle v. State of New York, 271 A.D.2d 394, 395, 705 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). “A landowner has no duty to warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses” (LaPera v. Montana, 124 A.D.3d 844, 845, 3 N.Y.S.3d 73 ; see Kaufmann v. Lerner N.Y., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 660, 660–661, 838 N.Y.S.2d 181 ; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 51–52, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40 ).
Here, the determination of the Court of Claims after the nonjury trial that the State did not have a duty to warn the claimant and other inmates not to touch the window was warranted by the facts. The claimant failed to establish that the concededly nondefective window constituted a latent, dangerous condition (see generally Martino v. Stolzman, 18 N.Y.3d at 908, 941 N.Y.S.2d 28, 964 N.E.2d 399 ; Clairmont v. State of New York, 277 A.D.2d at 768–769, 716 N.Y.S.2d 760 ).
The claimant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the determination of the Court of Claims that the State was not liable for the claimant's injuries will not be disturbed.