From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tresgallo v. Danica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued June 15, 2001.

August 6, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered June 29, 2000, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Barr Brothers Moving Company, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

James J. Killerlane (David Samel, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Abilheira Ferrara, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David T. Ferrara of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Innocenza Tresgallo (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell in the hallway of a commercial building where four-by-eight masonite boards had been placed to protect the floors during a move conducted by the defendant Barr Brothers Moving Company, Inc. (hereinafter Barr).

The Supreme Court properly granted Barr's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she did not see the "cardboard" before she fell, and that she did not notice whether it was raised from the floor. Since the plaintiff failed to identify any aspect of the masonite floorboards or their placement which was defective or caused her to fall, the jury would have been required to speculate as to the cause of her accident (see, Robinson v. Lupo, 261 A.D.2d 525; Castellitto v. Atlantic Pac. Co., 244 A.D.2d 379; Kuchman v. Olympia York, 238 A.D.2d 381). The Supreme Court also correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that the presence of the boards in the hallway was not an inherently dangerous condition, and was readily observable by the reasonable use of the plaintiff's senses (see, Dominitz v. Food Emporium, 271 A.D.2d 640; Boehme v. Edgar Fabrics, 248 A.D.2d 344; Moran v. County of Dutchess, 237 A.D.2d 266).

S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tresgallo v. Danica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Tresgallo v. Danica

Case Details

Full title:INNOCENZA TRESGALLO, ET AL., appellants, v. DANICA, LLC, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 159

Citing Cases

Xikis v. Vocational Ed. Extn. Bd. of Suffolk

Thus, a plaintiff may not recover damages for personal injuries when there is only a bare possibility that…

Tenenbaum v. Best 21 Ltd.

The injured plaintiff stepped onto and stepped down from the platform minutes before the accident. The…