Garcia v. New York City Housing AuthorityGarcia v. New York City Housing Authority
— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about September 20, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion is granted and the complaint dismissed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.
At approximately 12:30 p.m. on April 10, 1987, plaintiff, a tenant in defendant’s housing project building, 1595 Madison Avenue, sustained a fracture to her right arm when she slipped and fell on an internal stairwell in the building. She commenced this action on or about September 1, 1987, seeking damages for personal injuries, claiming that she had slipped on a puddle of vomit which defendant had permitted to remain on the stairwell for an unreasonable period of time. Upon examination of this record, we conclude that the evidence adduced by plaintiff, with respect to both causation and notice, is legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case and, accordingly, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
At a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, held July 13, 1987, plaintiff testified that she had slipped on the third step of the stairwell, and that she had never actually seen the vomit, either before or after her fall. Plaintiff further testified that her live-in companion, Ebodio Garcia, had told her that she had slipped on the vomit, which he had first observed on the morning of the accident. When deposed on December 28, 1988, however, Mr. Garcia testified that he had not entered the stairwell that morning, and that he had only seen the vomit — which he placed on the seventh step — after coming to plaintiff’s aid.
Another witness, Maria Maldonado, also testified that she
In light of the fact that plaintiff testified she fell from the third step and never saw vomit, while Mr. Garcia and Ms. Maldonado testified that vomit was present at or about the middle of the stairwell, plaintiff failed to make a causal connection between the alleged defect and her accident. Absent a showing that "but for” the vomit she would not have fallen, defendant’s motion for summary judgment could not be overcome (see, Gilchrist v City of Troy,
Plaintiff’s complaint further suffers from a failure to establish that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition (see, Trujillo v Riverbay Corp.,