New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U), the Supreme Court of Kings County reviewed motions for summary judgment in a personal injury case where the plaintiff alleged she fell due to poor lighting and an unmarked single step.
Background Facts
On March 6, 2020, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Joanne G. Pelletteri was making a food delivery at a building located at 8414 4th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The property was owned by Ferrantino and Company, Inc.
Pelletteri alleged that while exiting the building, she missed a single step leading from the courtyard to the sidewalk and fell. According to her, the area was not well lit and there were no signs or markings to warn of the step. She claimed that the step and the surrounding sidewalk were the same color, and the lack of lighting made the step difficult to see.
In September 2021, Pelletteri filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries. Ferrantino responded and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the condition was open and obvious and that there was no defect. Pelletteri cross-moved for summary judgment on liability, arguing that the defendant failed to provide safe conditions on the property.
Question Before the Court
The court was asked to decide two questions:
-
Whether Ferrantino was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the case because the step was not defective or dangerous and was clearly visible.
-
Whether Pelletteri was entitled to summary judgment in her favor on liability because the step was not visible due to poor lighting and caused her fall.
Court’s Decision
The court denied both motions. It held that Ferrantino did not prove as a matter of law that the step was not dangerous or that the area was adequately lit. The court also found that Pelletteri did not prove that poor lighting was the only cause of her fall.
The court ruled that neither party had eliminated all factual questions. It emphasized that the visibility of the step and the lighting conditions at the time of the incident were disputed. The judge explained that these questions were for a jury to decide.
Discussion
Property owners in New York have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. In a slip-and-fall case, the defendant must show that they did not create the dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it.
Constructive notice means the condition must have existed long enough to be discovered and fixed. In this case, the court focused on whether the step was a dangerous condition and whether the lighting was adequate.
Pelletteri testified that it was dark outside and that there were no lights in the area where she fell. She also said that the step and the sidewalk were the same color, making it hard to notice. The defendant offered affidavits and a report from a building superintendent and an engineering consultant. However, the consultant’s report was not in admissible form because it was unsworn.
The superintendent did not provide any evidence that specifically addressed the lighting conditions at the time of the fall. There were no records showing when the area had last been inspected or whether any lights were on at the time.
Ferrantino argued that the condition was open and obvious. But courts in New York have held that just because a condition is open and obvious does not mean it is not dangerous. The question of whether a step is dangerous due to inadequate lighting depends on the facts of each case.
Pelletteri asked the court to find the defendant liable as a matter of law. But the court said it could not do so because it was unclear whether the lighting was the only cause of her fall. Other factors could have contributed, such as the way she was walking or the shoes she was wearing.
Because these issues involve factual questions, the court said a jury must decide whether the defendant was negligent and whether that negligence caused the fall.
Conclusion
The court denied Ferrantino’s motion to dismiss the case and denied Pelletteri’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The case will now proceed to trial, where a jury will decide whether the lighting conditions and the appearance of the step created a hazard and whether that hazard caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
This decision shows how courts handle disputes over alleged property hazards. Even when there is testimony about poor lighting or a hidden step, the court may leave it to a jury to decide what really happened and who was at fault.