Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
O'Connor-Miele v. Barhite & Holzinger, Inc.
Citations: 234 A.D.2d 106; 650 N.Y.S.2d 717; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12434
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 11, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
An order from the Supreme Court of New York County, issued by Justice Carol Huff on May 25, 1995, has been unanimously reversed. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and reinstated the complaint. In evaluating the motion, the court emphasized the requirement to accept the plaintiff’s pleadings as true and to consider the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The court noted that a landowner has a duty to maintain safe premises, which encompasses the potential for injuries, the severity of such injuries, and the burden of mitigating risks. To recover damages, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused the injury. Constructive notice requires that a defect be visible and apparent for a sufficient duration prior to the incident to allow for discovery and remedy. In this case, the plaintiff presented evidence of a recurring hazardous condition: debris accumulation, specifically soap powder in the stairwell, which frequently resulted from tenants using washing machines. The plaintiff's assertion of this ongoing issue was corroborated by a neighbor’s affidavit. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff could not meet her burden of proof at trial, and their evidence of a clean stairwell only raised further questions about the actual condition of the premises. Thus, a material question of fact existed, precluding summary judgment.