Opinion
6465 Index 25560/14E
05-03-2018
Marilyn SILVERMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BRADY L.L.C., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Kristin Keehan of counsel), for appellants. The Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown, LLP, New York (Glenn K. Faegenburg of counsel), for respondent.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Kristin Keehan of counsel), for appellants.
The Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown, LLP, New York (Glenn K. Faegenburg of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Kern, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna Mills, J.), entered March 20, 2017, upon a jury verdict, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries she sustained when the doorknob on the door to her apartment came off the door as she pulled on it, causing her to lose her balance and fall.
The jury's verdict was supported by valid lines of reasoning and permissible inferences from the evidence at trial and was not against the weight of the evidence (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498–499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 [1978] ). Plaintiff's testimony that she complained on multiple occasions to both the building superintendent and the porter who tightened the screws in her doorknob at least three times presented an issue of fact and credibility for the jury as to whether defendants had notice of the recurring loose doorknob (see Santana v. Kardash Reality Corp., 158 A.D.3d 595, 71 N.Y.S.3d 471 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Rios v. 1146 Ogden LLC, 136 A.D.3d 606, 25 N.Y.S.3d 215 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Actual notice of the recurring loose doorknob provides constructive notice of each recurrence (see Talavera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 41 A.D.3d 135, 136, 836 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Simoni v.2095 Cruger Assoc., 285 A.D.2d 431, 432, 729 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2001] ).
Testimony about the post-accident inspection of the doorknob, which defendants failed to preserve, was relevant to the condition of the doorknob at the time of the accident (see Francklin v. New York El. Co., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 180 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Vaccariello v. Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc., 136 A.D.3d 890, 892–893, 26 N.Y.S.3d 139 [2d Dept. 2016] ). In context, any error in permitting testimony about the concomitant repair was harmless.
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be unavailing.