Flores v. 1298 Grand, LLC

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order granting the defendant summary judgment in a premises-liability action arising from the plaintiff's fall on an interior staircase. The court held that the defendant's out-of-possession-landlord argument was improperly raised for the first time in reply and that the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment concerning causation, the absence of a handrail, and constructive notice. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Holdings

1. The defendant's contention that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual duty to maintain the premises was not properly before the Supreme Court because it was raised for the first time in reply papers and the plaintiff had no opportunity to address it in surreply.
2. The defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, because her testimony that she sought something to hold but found no handrail created an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail proximately caused her injury.
3. The defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because it did not demonstrate that it satisfied its common-law duty to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition or that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court could grant summary judgment based on the defendant's contention that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual duty to maintain the premises when that contention was raised for the first time in reply papers.
2. Whether the defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation.
3. Whether the defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous staircase condition and satisfied its common-law duty to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition.

Disposition

reversed