Joanna Rigas v. Ralph Serpico, et.al.

(Supreme Court, Suffolk County Index No. 617863/2017):

The Rigas family, (father, mother, daughter), were leaving a Greek Festival at the Greek Orthodox Shrine Church and returning to their car which was parked at the insured’s (FRIT) shopping center. The Church and shopping center were on opposite sides of Pulaski Road in Suffolk County, New York.

When the Rigas family attempted to cross the road, Andrew and Joanne were hit by a vehicle driven by a co-defendant. The father was killed and the mother wound up in a coma for two months. The daughter then asserted a cause of action for emotional trauma having seen her parents involved in this accident.

Plaintiffs sued the drivers of the vehicle, the Church, and FRIT. Plaintiffs alleged that FRIT and the church were part of a “joint venture” wherein patrons of the Greek Festival were “permitted” to park at the shopping center, and that FRIT derived a benefit from this arrangement.

It was alleged that FRIT knew of the danger and failed to provide proper security, crossing guards, or other measures to ensure the safety of the Greek Festival’s patrons.

FRIT argued that no such agreement existed and that they derived no benefit from the Greek Festival’s patrons parking in their shopping center. Further, Pulaski Road was a public roadway for which FRIT had no responsibility and FRIT took no action that would have led the plaintiffs into a dangerous condition.

Plaintiffs’ allegations against FRIT were found to be baseless and conclusory and FRIT was awarded summary judgment.

Arlene Kreindler and Michael Kreindler v. The City of New York, et.al.

(2018 WL 4835507; Supreme Court, N.Y. County Index No. 153525/2016):

Plaintiff Arlene Kreindler commenced this action alleging personal injuries following a trip and fall that occurred adjacent to the insured’s (Eat Lexington 87, LLC d/b/a Eli’s Essentials, and Eli Zabar) business.

Kreindler fell when she stepped into a depressed tree well. Along with a failure to maintain said tree well, plaintiff also alleged that the insured directed her into this tree well, as she was required to walk in the direction of the tree well in order to get around plywood barriers erected outside of the insured’s premises.

In moving for summary judgment, the insured argued that the Administrative Code places the obligation upon the City of New York, not a property owner or commercial business tenant, to maintain tree wells.

Further, plaintiff’s testified that she did not notice the plywood barriers until after her fall, evidencing that they could not have directed her into the tree well. She also testified that she was walking in a straight line with nothing altering her path when she stepped into the tree well.

Based on the aforementioned arguments, summary judgment was awarded to the insured and upheld on a motion to reargue.

Michael Cutaia vs. Board of Managers of the 160/170 Varick Street Condominium, et.al.

(2019 WL 1919254; Supreme Court, N.Y. County Index No. 155334/2012):

This was an action grounded in Labor Law and general negligence in which plaintiff, Michael Cutaia, a plumber, alleges that he sustained an electrical shock while working on an A-frame ladder while in the process of cutting a pipe.

This caused him to fall to the ground, sustaining injury. Plaintiff sued the insured, Patriot Electric, along with several other parties including owner Trinity Church, and general contractor Michilli, Inc.

Patriot, an electrical subcontractor, argued that the Labor Law did not apply to them, as they were not an owner, general contractor, or statutory agent imbued with authority to control or direct the plaintiff’s work.

Further, the evidence showed that they had not worked in the area where plaintiff was injured. Despite plaintiff’s testimony that he observed Patriot workers performing electrical work in the area where he was injured, this was not sufficient to raise a question of fact.

Further, none of the Espinal factors applied to Patriot. Patriot was awarded summary judgment as to all causes of action.

J.C. v. 215 Mt Holding, LLC and H&A Convenience Corp.

(Supreme Court, Westchester County Index No. 59325/2021):

Plaintiff, an infant, tripped and fell while on defendant property, and alleged that his injury was caused by a wooden flower bed border that was situated near the entrance to defendant’s convenience store.

Through discovery, it was uncovered that an unidentified assailant ran onto the property and started shooting into a group of people, causing plaintiff and others to flee.

Defendant was awarded summary judgment after arguing that plaintiff’s injury was due to an intervening act, and that any negligence on the part of the defendant, alleged or actual, was not the real cause of plaintiff’s accident.