| FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 P
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`EXHIBIT
`15
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`7/12/2021
`
`Young v. 1530 Rosedale Partners LLo | New York Law Joumal
`
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`
`NOT
`
`FOR REPRINT
`
`@hpWj!1c
`
`or Select
`
`'Prine
`
`in your
`
`browser
`
`menu
`
`to print
`
`this document
`
`Page
`
`pr(cid:25)tei1
`
`from:
`
`https://wwwdow.com/newyorklawfoumal/almlD/162665
`
`/ 426Nx309142018
`
`Young
`
`v.1530
`
`Rosedale
`
`Partners
`
`LLC
`
`Owner
`
`Falls
`
`to Establish
`
`Lack
`
`of Notice
`
`of Defective
`
`Condition,
`
`Denied
`
`DIsmissal
`
`July, 08, 2021
`
`| New York
`
`Law Journal
`
`Docket
`
`Injury
`
`(https://www,law.com/topics/personaMnjury/)
`
`"
`"
`"
`"
`"'
`
`Personal
`Area:
`Practice
`2021-06-22
`Date
`filed:
`Court:
`Supreme
`for
`Attorneys:
`Justice
`judge:
`" Case Number:
`
`Bronx
`Court,
`plaintiff:
`; for-defendant:
`Adrian
`Armstrong
`30914/2018E
`
`Cage
`
`Digest
`
`Summary
`
`of
`
`on the
`1530 Rosedale
`owner
`against
`issue
`judgment
`In this
`Partners
`for
`Young moved
`liability
`summary
`she fell down
`to dismiss.
`action.
`her
`as she lost
`stairs
`cross-moved
`1530
`the
`alleged
`personal
`Young
`injury
`1530 was
`restore
`no handrail
`available
`She argued
`and
`to help
`In causing
`the
`negligent
`her balance.
`balance
`actual
`same
`despite
`to repair
`condition
`and
`negligent
`in failíng
`testified
`he
`and/or
`constructive
`notice.
`Batra
`of any
`repairs
`Delgado
`as a handyman
`to take
`and
`noted
`he was
`in the
`care
`informed
`hired
`Delgado
`building
`1530
`repairs
`after
`Young's
`daughter
`complained
`argued
`made
`of
`the
`handrail.
`entitlement
`to
`nor
`as evidence
`or constructive
`notice
`the
`showed
`It did
`not
`create
`of
`have
`actual
`The
`entitlement
`to judgment
`prima
`stated
`issue
`facle
`on the
`court
`established
`Young
`sufficient
`to establish
`1530
`notice
`of
`the
`had
`evidence
`constructive
`defective
`handrail
`of notice
`1530
`failed
`to satisfy
`Its initial
`burden
`of establishing
`of
`the
`defect
`as It
`a lack
`loose
`was
`inspected
`when
`the
`repaired
`before
`the
`handrall
`or
`
`necessary
`judgment
`summary
`handrall
`condition.
`
`liabilityrsubmitting
`found
`It
`condition,
`offered
`no testimony
`Young's
`motion.
`
`of
`
`accident,
`
`granting
`
`Fun
`
`Case
`
`Digest
`
`Text
`
`In this
`
`personal
`her
`
`for
`plaintiff
`to CPLR $3212,
`pursuant
`Juanita
`an Order
`moves
`action,
`("Plaintiff")
`Young
`injury
`against
`judgment
`LLC
`1530 Rosedale
`of
`on the
`Issue
`defendant
`Partners,
`liability
`summary
`granting
`defenses
`affirmative
`Rosedale's
`fault.
`Rosedale
`opposes
`to comparative
`and
`("Rosedale"),
`pertaining
`striking
`to CPLR §3212
`for
`and
`cross-moves
`of plaintiff
`the motion
`an order
`the
`complaint
`pursuant
`dismissing
`28, 2020
`Rosedale
`commenced
`against
`this
`action
`against
`24, 2018. On September
`on September
`it, Plalntiff
`improvement.
`Richard
`On
`action
`against
`Jr. and R.D. Home
`Delgado
`a third-party
`Rosedale
`commenced
`14, 2021 Rosedale
`the
`a second
`filed
`plaintiff's
`Young.
`complaint
`against
`January
`from an accident
`at
`the
`action
`that
`on January
`at approximately
`This
`arises
`13, 2018,
`Is a three-
`New York.
`Rosedale
`owns
`located
`at 1530 Rosedale
`the
`premises
`premises
`she was
`complaint
`alleges
`In her
`residential
`building.
`Plaintiff,
`
`family
`
`third-party
`occurred
`
`Avenue,
`63 years
`
`Bronx,
`and
`old
`
`legally
`
`blind,
`
`son, Buddy
`9:00
`a.m.,
`which
`that
`
`https://www.law.com/neWyorklawjoumal/alrnf D/162565%20NY300142010/?printer-friendly
`
`1/4
`
`

`

`floor
`third
`on the
`apartment
`her
`leaving
`the
`in between
`staircase
`the
`faii'down
`to four
`about
`three
`after walking
`steps,
`slowly
`there."
`She added
`wasn't
`handrall
`"butit
`again,
`back."
`She alleges
`that
`the
`to get my balance
`staircase
`was
`on the
`handrall
`the
`broken,
`the
`negligent
`in causing
`was
`premises,
`notice,
`constructive
`and/or
`she
`that
`testified
`at her deposition
`Plaintiff
`D'Nal Young,
`with
`her
`years
`half
`daughter,
`time
`at another
`also
`split
`she
`time,
`living
`three
`of
`a total
`a basement
`with
`floors
`and
`third
`floor.
`on the
`unit
`testified
`further
`Pfaintiff
`her
`and
`she told
`accident
`faTntiffhsTATt(cid:11)e
`e
`p o
`had
`about
`she
`spent
`accident,
`handrail
`the
`of
`the
`it before
`In further
`interest
`the
`first
`
`the
`that
`daughter
`
`had
`subject
`the
`at
`grandchildren
`her
`with
`location
`another
`apartment
`units.
`
`lived
`two
`
`premises
`her
`and
`daughter.
`apartment
`The
`
`for
`approximately
`Young,
`son, Buddy
`The subject
`in which
`
`During
`consists
`building
`she lived was
`the
`
`three
`
`and
`this
`of
`
`a
`
`two
`
`only
`
`to a year
`diirid
`
`prior
`the
`
`she returned
`at
`always
`loose when
`
`to the
`8
`"section
`the
`before
`the time
`she
`used
`
`and for
`to
`
`maintenance,
`building.
`was
`
`not
`
`While
`
`from
`performed
`the
`subject
`
`building
`was
`
`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`7/12/2021
`
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`
`Young v.1530 Rosedale Partners LLC I New York Law Joumal
`of
`the
`one
`of her grandsons,
`with
`when
`building
`third
`and
`second
`in her deposition
`She stated
`floors.
`testimony
`she started
`her balance
`to lose
`and
`then
`to grab
`tried
`that
`so I couldn't
`"rall was
`I had
`the
`grab
`it, so.
`nothing
`incident
`occurred
`the
`was poor
`and
`because
`lighting
`and/or
`the
`that Rosedale,
`owner
`of
`the
`and
`to repair
`them despite
`
`broke,
`because
`and
`in failing
`
`detached,
`negligent
`
`she was
`
`caused
`that
`onto
`
`to
`
`the
`
`having
`
`actual
`
`loose,
`condition,
`
`(8) months
`abapucje<ght
`handraii&adbgenfossafg
`aauf!!gjinatW_n-c~a>Ìedih~e"feiidid
`about
`her
`it, and
`faU dlWhever7epaired
`it. PlaintiffWrÊh)afrWdil)u~st
`and when
`two weeks
`daughter's
`house
`at her
`other
`that
`handrail
`had gotten
`She added
`was
`worse.
`the
`accident,
`it would
`sturdy.
`move
`and was
`more
`the
`not
`specifically,
`accident,
`on the
`of Atin
`Batra, who
`relies
`deposition
`support
`of her
`has an ownership
`plaintiff
`inotion,
`of 2017,
`has owned
`subject
`He testified
`that Rosedale
`the
`premises
`since
`in Rosedale.
`spring
`of
`subject
`twice
`a week
`the
`to four weeks
`he visited
`the
`of ownership
`three
`premises,
`property
`"
`make
`to the building
`was
`in order
`and
`With
`respect
`sure
`the
`"stabilized
`essentially
`building
`as a handyman
`of any
`in the
`that
`Richard
`care
`repairs
`he hired
`Delgado
`to take
`Batra
`testified
`per
`performed
`the
`instructions
`him, Batra
`testified
`at
`Delgado
`work
`that Delgado
`building
`were
`The
`at
`to perform
`Inspections,
`inspections
`the
`required
`by Housing
`only
`Authority
`to January*
`when
`did
`prior
`through
`section
`8. Batra
`know
`not
`handrail
`Inspected
`last
`officials
`gé1tBe
`pfaintiff
`FiEr dräigr(cid:17)öp
`13, 2018.
`Batra
`admitted
`that
`January TEMTut
`he instructed
`he does
`not
`recall
`complained,
`it,which
`he daims
`Delgado
`Delgado
`the
`repair
`on the
`to fix
`handrail.
`at his deposition
`he fixed
`that
`testified
`Delgado
`of
`he did not
`take
`it and
`photographs
`repaired
`his testimony
`that
`despite
`that was
`performed,
`to Batra.
`them
`repairsand
`presenting
`deposition
`on the
`also
`Plaintiff's
`grandson.
`son and
`of her
`relies
`Plaintiff
`testirnanies
`daughter,
`daughter,
`the
`of
`the
`at
`the
`detached
`handrail
`testified
`at
`staircase
`bottom
`the
`was
`that
`resided
`who
`also
`premises,
`the
`date
`the
`the
`13, 2018,
`She added
`that
`November
`of
`thorough
`of 2017
`handrail
`from
`january
`of 2017
`but
`in November
`of 2017,
`least March
`been
`detached
`became
`and
`loose
`since
`at
`had
`eventually
`never
`been
`to the
`landlord.
`Plaintiff's
`despite
`her verbal
`repaired
`complaints
`that
`son, Buddy
`time,
`during
`handrail
`always
`he
`in the
`Young who
`was
`loose,and
`that
`subject
`resided
`likewise
`testified
`building,
`to four
`about
`staircase
`the
`of
`become
`noticed
`that
`ft had
`bottom
`(4) weeks
`before
`detached
`at
`the
`(2)
`the accident..
`one month
`prior
`off
`also
`Plaintiffs
`handrail
`grandson
`the wall
`testified
`he observed
`the
`that
`the
`accident.
`daughter
`to them depicting
`the
`also
`Plaintiff's
`and
`that
`the
`shown
`son
`testified
`photograph
`(marked
`as Exhibit
`ripped
`handrall
`appeared
`handrail
`from the
`depicts
`how the
`on the
`of
`bottorri
`accident.
`partial
`opposes
`Rosedale
`Judgment
`the
`summary
`as the evidence
`shows
`that
`judgment
`defendant
`the
`notice
`or constructive
`actual
`of
`the
`the
`condition
`of
`and
`In opposition
`in support
`of
`for
`its cross motion
`parties
`and
`upon
`the
`non-parties
`relied
`testimony
`
`compja'iiiedWHTr¤ieIE<,G
`He testified
`the
`date.
`informed
`him that
`
`after
`that
`he performed
`
`she
`
`necessary
`
`Mr.
`
`handrail
`the
`this work.
`his usual
`
`twice,
`Delgado
`practice
`
`but
`had
`was
`
`he does
`no invoice
`to prepare
`
`dates
`
`not
`know the
`to substantiate
`after
`an invoice
`
`he
`the work
`
`performing
`
`incident,
`
`the
`
`two
`
`had
`
`to
`
`the
`
`date
`
`and
`
`motion
`did
`not
`handrail.
`
`contend
`create
`the
`
`it
`that
`condition
`
`is entitled
`and
`
`to summary
`defendant
`did
`
`not
`
`have
`
`summary
`by the
`
`judgment,
`plaintiff.
`
`Rosedale
`relies
`maintains
`Rosedale
`
`on the
`that
`
`deposition
`it never
`
`D)
`
`of
`
`httpr//www.law.com/newyorklawjoumal/almlD/1025651426NY309142010/?printer-friendly
`
`2/4
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`7/12/2021
`
`Young v. 1630 Rosedale Partners LLC i New York Law Joumal
`
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`
`received
`plaintiff's
`
`but
`
`8 regarding
`or handrail
`the
`staircase
`the handrail
`about
`complained
`to blrn
`handrail
`that Delgado
`fixed
`the
`in response
`beam.
`could
`notrecall
`the
`Batra
`also
`condition
`13, 2018.
`He testified
`that Delgado
`fixed
`the
`
`Prior
`to the
`prior
`to January
`to the
`complaint
`of
`the handrail
`handrail
`and
`
`13,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`that
`was
`
`stand
`on the
`son, Buddy
`Young
`ever
`if
`had
`handrail
`the subject
`been
`He testified
`twice.
`that
`handrail
`one
`and
`repair
`the second
`occurred
`recall when
`the second
`not
`repair
`
`building
`could
`
`it did
`
`the
`the
`have
`
`in these
`work
`"East
`Shore
`order,
`Included
`in the work
`
`offered
`existence
`
`a speculative
`only
`of a question
`
`of
`
`attorney's
`fact
`
`defeating
`
`of
`
`a bill
`plaintiff
`
`deciding
`the
`favors
`
`opposing
`
`or violations
`from section
`complaints
`any
`the
`plaintiff
`that
`Batra
`testified
`accident,
`recall
`not
`date.
`He claims
`he does
`the
`2018,
`Into
`it and
`it back
`the
`screwing
`by reinforcing
`prior
`to January
`to the
`visit
`at his last
`property
`was
`him everythin!
`plaintiff
`fine.
`informed
`he saw plaintifi*s
`Delgado
`testified
`to the
`plaintiff's
`Prior
`accident,
`Delgado
`that
`he is unaware
`testified
`lightbulbs.
`to change
`the
`handraii
`he repaired
`but maintains
`13, 2018
`that
`the
`prior
`to January
`inspected
`of purchasing
`in the
`was
`the
`process
`Betra
`place while
`repair
`took
`broken.
`or a tenant
`it was
`Batra
`reported
`either
`Delgado
`that
`after
`it happened
`after
`or
`If
`the
`subject
`accident.
`place
`took
`argues
`on the
`submitted
`Rosedale
`not
`established
`Based
`that
`create
`evidence,
`testimony
`handrall
`and
`the
`that
`of
`the
`plaintiffs
`son Buddy
`after
`condition
`created
`handrail,
`repaired,
`Young
`and
`it did not
`that
`it. Further,
`defective
`handrail
`Rosedale
`argues
`condition
`on the
`by standing
`breaking
`reasonable
`inspections
`It conducted
`the Housing
`and
`notice
`contends
`that
`condition.
`the
`Rosedale
`never made
`violations
`handrail
`complaints
`or
`the
`issued
`subject
`regarding
`any
`any
`Authority
`work
`orders.
`produced
`Rosedale's
`testified
`in this matter,
`defendant
`Included
`After
`witnesses
`2017 work
`order
`to the January
`30
`Is a work
`orders
`dated
`30, 2017.
`January
`According
`LLC,"
`for work
`performed
`apartment.
`Management
`billed
`defendant
`$7,500
`in plaintiff's
`Bannister."
`$450
`to "Fix and Reinforce
`for
`order
`was
`to Its motion,
`that
`in opposition
`defendants
`argues
`in reply,
`the
`form to support
`evidence
`in admissible
`affirmation
`withoutany
`on liability
`in plaintiff's
`favor.
`judgment
`summary
`A party moving
`facie
`for
`prima
`judgment
`show
`must
`surnmary
`the
`absence
`sufficient
`to demonstrate
`evidence
`.by tendering
`27 NY3d
`1039,1043
`To defeat
`LLC v. Brown,
`Lake
`[20163
`there
`is a material
`has to show
`that
`motion
`question(s)
`a motion
`49 NY2d
`562 [1980])Jn
`557,
`York,
`that most
`evidence1n
`a manner
`75, 82 [1st Dept.
`AD3d
`2013]L
`"A_F_oEpEEleeg0t
`inAossesspjpin-o_f_Wgittgw_esla_duty
`condition"
`676
`v Telcholz,
`173 AD2d
`(Farrar
`674,
`antiffaust-skew-that4hedefendantai&gts_ea_1eçLtj2e
`a cf¶¾0
`kF_çgigdg.eaf-the..hazanine.Ingada
`constructive
`c5Uillfug<yf_F4cjsgaajefect
`to the
`accident
`prior
`BaffilfiT¶olii
`837 [1986]).
`in support
`
`an entitlement
`of any material
`judgment,
`summary
`that
`requlres
`fact
`
`of
`
`for
`
`as a matter
`to judgment
`of
`law
`of Thayer
`of
`fact
`issues
`(Friends
`the party
`the
`opposing
`(Zuckerman
`a trial
`v. City of New
`the
`court
`should
`interpret
`the
`judgment,
`summary
`(see Kershaw
`v. Hospital
`for Special
`114
`party
`
`Surgery,
`
`in a reasonably
`ai5YF5iiTaõiEãTe-liia-ilijr-
`
`safe
`
`to maintain
`[2nd Dep>Ï?i9TTid
`
`yduttog_268AD2d
`ap1arent
`and
`b_e_yjgLttigang
`to discover
`[the
`employees
`owneers¶
`v. American
`Gordon
`106, quoting
`
`ermit
`to
`234 AD2d
`
`ger,
`
`it
`
`the
`property
`eitãbTsE
`dangerous
`383
`inust
`and
`Museum
`
`[2000]}
`ex~istTdr
`
`actual
`or had
`condition
`In order
`to constitute__
`a suffident
`length
`of
`it
`"IO'Connor-Miele
`remedy
`of Natural
`67 NY2d
`History,
`
`or
`
`time
`v.
`
`induding
`testimonies
`suffide(cid:11)(cid:144)To
`
`Instant
`
`of
`the
`deposition
`established
`establish
`
`motion
`
`of
`as to the
`issue
`liability,
`of parties
`and
`non-parties,
`testimony
`to ju
`its prima
`entitlement
`facie
`thatThele>entfsiEs(cid:11)EFEoistiuictive
`.
`
`plaintiff
`
`a fair
`
`amount
`
`evidence
`adBject-
`the
`
`of evidence,
`submitted
`plaintiff's
`the
`Here,
`affidavjttan_cid_gp-gsitiga
`e f aãs aiblittEUif
`law by submittjng
`conWisof
`notice
`of
`defective
`the
`-----.------...__._____
`defendants'
`
`Once
`
`plaintiff
`
`facie
`
`evidentiary
`summary
`Defendant
`offered
`Moore
`that
`
`the
`
`had
`a prima
`established
`of negligence,
`obligation
`it was
`case
`to defeat
`of material
`in order
`fact
`issues
`triable
`form
`in admissible
`proof
`raising
`595 [1980]).
`49 NY2d
`judgment
`557, 427 N.Y.S.2d
`of New York,
`v. City
`(Zuckerman
`Its initial
`failed
`a lack
`of notice
`inasmuch
`of
`defect
`burden
`to satisfy
`ofestablishing
`no testimony
`to the
`as t_ofter
`h-eleasaAacAraj!Eas.Jiasiinspst.gstottapa_ited-p_rr.i_or
`v. 793-797
`The work
`[1st Dept
`order
`St. Hous.
`382
`2007]).
`Garden
`46 AD3d
`Dev. Corp.,
`year
`prior
`to the
`was
`alrnost
`plaintiff's
`handrall
`to be repaired,
`is dated
`one
`
`to submit
`the motion
`
`the
`
`it
`
`at
`fsee
`accident
`which
`shows
`and
`does
`not
`
`accident,
`
`httpr//www.Iaw.com/newyorklavdoumal/almlD/16250si426NY3091420t8hprintersfriendly
`
`3/4
`
`.
`
`.
`
`836,
`
`for
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 12:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63
`7/12/2021
`
`Young v. 1530 Rosedale Partners LLC | New York Law Journal
`
`INDEX NO. 611420/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
`
`establish
`repaired
`Rosedale
`Rosedale's
`not
`would
`be awarded
`double
`the
`owEco
`idria
`whether
`Injurles.
`action
`facie
`rather
`
`the work
`that
`inspected
`or
`also
`argues
`
`performed.
`
`Additionally,
`
`Rosedale's
`
`repairman
`
`could
`
`not
`
`say when
`
`he last
`
`of
`
`to
`
`(duty,
`states,
`
`plaintiffs
`of
`prima
`but
`
`recovery,
`
`of providing
`deposition
`was
`at
`
`least,
`
`a nonnegligent
`testimonies
`
`partially
`
`at
`
`explanation
`proffered
`fault
`
`by
`
`was
`ever
`handrail.
`the
`that
`an issue
`fact
`comparative
`negligence,
`plaintiffs
`exists
`regarding
`contrary
`present
`on plaintiff's
`of comparative
`this
`fault
`an.issue
`did
`even
`if
`case
`plaintiff
`positiort
`part,
`she was
`facie
`fault
`free
`from comparative
`that
`a prima
`to make
`be required
`iri order
`to
`showing
`to partial
`judgment
`To be entitled
`Judgment,
`summa
`a plaintiff
`does
`partial
`not bear
`summary
`thdsente
`afrimaEeTaie
`of establishing
`of his or her
`burden
`oBHndianti,>a~bility
`31 NY3d 5T2W25,
`v. City of New York,
`76 N.YS.3d
`tiviffuTt¶eiToWigilez
`85ETTO iii])
`'as a inâtter
`law before
`1s established
`of
`the jury must
`still
`deTeliBãi1ts
`determine
`trial,
`liaBility
`negligent
`such
`was
`a substantial
`factor
`in causing
`plaintiff
`and whether
`negligence
`was
`the
`The Rodriguez
`further
`held
`"comparative
`negligence
`is not
`a defense
`to the
`Court
`that
`cause
`of negligence,
`because
`to any
`is not
`a defense
`element
`it
`of plaintiffs
`breach,
`causation)
`for
`is not a bar
`as CPLR §1411
`cause
`of action
`to plaintiff's
`and
`negligence,
`plainly
`damages"
`a diminishment
`(Id. at 320)
`of
`the
`amount
`of
`defendants'
`has failed
`to meet
`submission
`their
`burden
`Therefore,
`whereas
`for
`the
`plaintiffs
`the
`evidence
`and
`accident,
`documentary
`as a matter
`of
`are
`to establish
`law that Rosedale
`plaintiff
`sufficient
`is hereby
`it
`___------------------------
`for partial
`that
`motion
`plaintiffs
`summary
`
`Accordingly,
`ORDERED
`Is further
`1530 Rosedale
`that
`ORDERED
`and Order
`is the Decision
`This
`22, 2021
`June
`Dated:
`
`judgment
`
`is granted
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to liability
`
`only;
`
`and
`
`it
`
`LLC's
`Partners,
`the Court.
`of
`
`cross motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`fudgment
`
`is denied.
`
`Copyright
`
`2021. ALM Media Propertiem
`
`LLC. An rights
`
`reserved,
`
`.
`
`https#www.law.com/newyorklawfoumal/atmlD/1625651426NY300142018/?printer-friendly
`
`4/4
`
`