From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taitt v. Riehm Plumbing Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 29, 2022
210 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

16738 Index No. 29074/19E Case No. 2022–02549

11-29-2022

Rahim TAITT, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. RIEHM PLUMBING CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.

Law Office of Eric D. Feldman, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for appellant. Burns & Harris, New York (Matthew J. Duco of counsel), for respondent.


Law Office of Eric D. Feldman, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for appellant.

Burns & Harris, New York (Matthew J. Duco of counsel), for respondent.

Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kennedy, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about June 1, 2022, which denied defendant's 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 accordingly.

Plaintiff slipped and fell on water that spilled out of a garbage bin positioned to catch a leak from a pipe in the ceiling of the basement storeroom in a building owned by plaintiff's employer. About two months before plaintiff's accident, defendant had repaired a sanitary waste line pipe in a basement corridor outside the storeroom in which the accident occurred. Upon these undisputed facts established by the record, defendant should have been granted summary judgment, as there is nothing but speculation to connect defendant's work on the waste pipe in the corridor with the leak from the water pipe in the storeroom that appeared two months later and caused plaintiff's mishap.

We note that plaintiff cannot rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, because he has not established that the pipes were within defendant's exclusive control (see Kosakowski v. 1372 Broadway Assoc., LLC, 160 A.D.3d 567, 567, 74 N.Y.S.3d 553 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Defendant made a showing, which plaintiff failed to rebut, that defendant was part of a rotation of plumbers who made only emergency repairs at the hospital, and that plaintiff's employer employed in-house plumbers.

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Taitt v. Riehm Plumbing Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 29, 2022
210 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Taitt v. Riehm Plumbing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Rahim Taitt, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Riehm Plumbing Corporation…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 29, 2022

Citations

210 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
179 N.Y.S.3d 51
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 6775