Published on:

Defendant Fails to Prove They Are Entitled to Summary Judgment as a Matter of Law


This plaintiff in this case is Randolph Ward. The defendant of the case is Three Nickles LLC. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. Judge Francois A. Rivera is overseeing the case.

The defendant, Three Nickles LLC is seeking an order for summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaint made against them by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Randolph Ward is opposing this motion.

Case Background

On the fourteenth of October in 2009, the plaintiff, Randolph Ward filed an instant action with the Clerks Office of Kings County. The instant action included a complaint and summons against the defendant, Three Nickles LLC.

The defendant filed an answer to this complaint on the 18th of November, 2009. A note of issue followed on the 10th of August, 2010.

The complaint and bill of particulars from the plaintiff states that he fell and injured himself on the morning of April 22nd, 2009 on the stairs located between the fourth and fifth floor of the premises owned by Nickles located at 555 Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. He states that Nickles was negligent in the case as the stairs were wet, causing a dangerous condition.

Papers for the Motion

The papers that have been filed by the defendant show seven exhibits labeled from A through G. The first exhibit, labeled A is the instant complaint filed by the plaintiff. Exhibit B is the answer they supplied along with the discover demands. Exhibit C is the bill of particulars that was provided by the defendant. Exhibit D is the ambulance call report. Exhibit E is a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition. Exhibit F is the transcript from Daisy Ward, the daughter of the plaintiff, deposition. The final exhibit, exhibit G is the affidavit provided by James Sealey, who is the superintendent of the premise in question.

Ward has presented four exhibits in opposition of the motion made by the defendants. Exhibit A is the affidavit of Ward that was signed on the 19th of November, 2010. The second exhibit, Exhibit B is a video from the premises that was given to Ward by the superintendent of the premises in question. Exhibit C is an affidavit from the grandson of the plaintiff. The final exhibit, exhibit D is a transcript from Daniel Reifer’s deposition. Reifer is the owner of the premise in question.

Court Discussion and Decision

In order for a court to grant a summary judgment to dismiss a complaint, the party that is requesting the summary judgment must prove prima facie that they are entitled to this judgment as a matter of the law. This includes providing sufficient evidence to show there are no triable issues or material of fact in the case.

In this particular case it is the duty of the landlord to maintain a premise in a condition that is reasonably safe. The defendant that makes a motion for summary judgment must show that they were unaware of the unsafe condition or that they were not given a significant amount of time in order to remedy the potentially hazardous situation.

In this particular situation, the defendant, Nickles, has failed to support the fact that they were not notified of the potentially hazardous condition. For this reason, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

If you have fallen and would like to discuss your case with a lawyer, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located in New York City. You may call us at any time to set up a free consultation.

Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information