Summary
In Ober, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the alleged defect in the cord on a hotel pay phone existed for a long enough period of time that knowledge could have been acquired in the exercise of reasonable care.
Summary of this case from Stanton v. Manhattan East Suite HotelsOpinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the alleged defect in an armored telephone cord on a public pay telephone at a telephone bank in the respondent's hotel existed for a sufficient length of time that knowledge thereof could have been acquired by the respondent in the exercise of reasonable care (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion to compel further discovery (see, CPLR 3212; Lewis v. I.K.E. Realty Assocs., 81 A.D.2d 711, 712). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.