Opinion
2013-03-5
Danny YACOUB, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 1540 WALLCO, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for appellant. Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco, Garden City (Carolyn M. Canzoneri of counsel), for respondent.
Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for appellant. Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco, Garden City (Carolyn M. Canzoneri of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered July 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
“Absent a hazardous condition or other circumstance giving rise to an obligation to provide exterior lighting for a particular area, landowners are generally not required ‘to illuminate their property during all hours of darkness' ” ( Miller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 9 N.Y.3d 973, 974, 848 N.Y.S.2d 599, 878 N.E.2d 1015 [2007], quoting Peralta v. Henriquez, 100 N.Y.2d 139, 145, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170 [2003] ). However, providing outside lighting may be a reasonable response by a private landowner who knows or should have known that someone visiting the property will confront a hazard that would be reasonably avoided by illumination ( see Peralta at 144, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170).
The fact that defendant enrolled its building in the “Clean Halls” program of the New York City Police Department is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to its alleged negligence in failing to light the fire escape where plaintiff fell.