From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kamps v. the N.Y. City Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-1

Lisa Ann Duac KAMPS, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,v.The NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.


Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for appellants.Soren & Soren, Staten Island (Steven J. Soren of counsel),for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered February 25, 2010, which 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 in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Lisa Ann Duac Kamps fell and was injured as she stepped from a square concrete platform that abutted a subway exit stairwell at the street level. Although the platform matched the sidewalk in color, the photographic evidence shows that its perimeter was daubed with yellow paint, faded at the front edge, yet particularly visible at the left and right margins. The photographs also show that the platform ends are flush with the end of the subway enclosure and with the end of the handrail on the right side of the subway stairwell, indicating that it was part of the stairwell and not part of the sidewalk. In light of this evidence, which showed that the platform was not a dangerous trap that caused plaintiff's fall, defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment ( see Remes v. 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 A.D.3d 665, 666, 903 N.Y.S.2d 8 [2010]; Burke v. Canyon Rd. Rest., 60 A.D.3d 558, 559, 876 N.Y.S.2d 25 [2009] ).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to show that the platform area created optical confusion so as to defeat defendants' prima facie showing ( compare Saretsky v. 85 Kenmare Realty Corp., 85 A.D.3d 89, 92, 924 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2011]; Chafoulias v. 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 A.D.2d 207, 210–212, 533 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1988] ).

SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kamps v. the N.Y. City Transit Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Kamps v. the N.Y. City Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Lisa Ann Duac KAMPS, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,v.The NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
931 N.Y.S.2d 858
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7691

Citing Cases

Demonte v. City of N.Y.

The Court notes that photographs of the area in question would suggest that the concrete platform is…

De Clef Pineirov. The Am. Museum of Nat. History

Finally, the more porous-looking travertine stair treads are a visibly different material than the smooth and…