Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of this action in which claimant allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell while walking down a path at the Stony Brook University Hospital.
The injured claimant, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this claim against the defendant, State of New York, as the owner of the property. The claim proceeded to a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, after which a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and against the claimants, dismissing the claim.
The Appellate Division found that the Court of Claims' determination that claimants failed to establish the existence of a dangerous condition created by the defendant which caused ice to form on the subject path was warranted by the facts and, thus, will not be disturbed. Claimants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the placement of a pipe at the base of a retaining wall next to the path proximately caused the accident. While the claimant testified at trial that he observed water coming from the pipe and flowing onto the entire width of the path after he fell, he was confronted with his deposition testimony to the contrary. Where the trial court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court's credibility determinations.
In addition, claimants introduced into evidence photographs of the accident site which demonstrated that the path and the pipe were located on opposite sides of the retaining wall, at least 12 inches away from each other. Further, claimants submitted no testimony as to the amount of water which allegedly flowed from the pipe so as to cause ice to form across the entire width of the bottom of the path, and claimants' experts' opinion with respect to this theory of liability was speculative.
Student note: In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the Appellate Division's power is as broad as that of the trial court. It may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing
in mind that the trial judge had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses.
Case: Fernandez v. State of New York, NY Slip Op 05638 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Fraudulent inducement and contracts.
