From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padilla v. Hope W. 118th Hous. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 21, 2022
204 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

15760-15760A Index No. 156139/16 Case Nos. 2021-01670, 2021-02230

04-21-2022

Diane PADILLA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HOPE WEST 118TH HOUSING COMPANY, INC., Defendant–Respondent.

Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York (Nicholas I. Timko of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Thomas A. Gentile of counsel), for respondent.


Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York (Nicholas I. Timko of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Thomas A. Gentile of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Mazzarelli, Shulman, Pitt, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2021, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 26, 2021, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action in which plaintiff slipped and fell on water that leaked from a toilet located on the floor above where her accident occurred, the court correctly granted defendant summary judgment. Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in that while it was an out-of-possession landlord with the right to reenter the leased premises to inspect or repair, the alleged defect was not a structural defect and it did not violate a specific statutory safety provision (see Del Rosario v. 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc., 266 A.D.2d 162, 163, 699 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept. 1999] ; see also Cuthbert v. Foreign Dev. Serv., Ltd., 161 A.D.3d 673, 673, 74 N.Y.S.3d 251 [1st Dept. 2018] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact, as she did not submit any evidence demonstrating that defendant created the water condition or had notice of its existence (see Salazar v. Fives 160th LLC, 91 A.D.3d 523, 524, 937 N.Y.S.2d 38 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Padilla v. Hope W. 118th Hous. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 21, 2022
204 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Padilla v. Hope W. 118th Hous. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Diane PADILLA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HOPE WEST 118TH HOUSING COMPANY…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2022

Citations

204 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
165 N.Y.S.3d 278

Citing Cases

Black v. 465 Payne Ave.

h the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an…