Chelnitsky v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability—trip-and-fall over a speed bump in a residential parking lot; proximate cause on summary judgment.
Denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The denial of summary judgment.
Video surveillance showed the plaintiff fell due to a misstep after fully traversing the speed bump, not because of a crack, so any alleged defect was not a proximate cause.
Background
Plaintiff alleged she was injured when her shoe caught in a crack at the beginning of a speed bump in the defendant’s parking lot, causing her to fall on the speed bump. Her deposition supported this account. Defendant relied on plaintiff’s testimony and video surveillance of the incident to argue she misstepped after completely crossing the speed bump, breaking the causal link to any alleged defect.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant’s post-discovery motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law, with costs; the Appellate Division granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Relying on the surveillance video, the court held the plaintiff did not trip on a crack in the speed bump but fell due to a misstep after traversing it, defeating proximate cause (see Schneider v Gap, Inc., 208 AD3d 606, 607; Pasquaretto v Long Is. Univ., 150 AD3d 1129, 1130-1131).
Legal Significance
Surveillance video can conclusively negate a claimed defect as the proximate cause and warrant summary judgment in premises liability cases, even where a plaintiff’s testimony alleges a hazardous condition.
Absent proof that a property defect proximately caused the fall, particularly where video shows a misstep after the alleged hazard was safely crossed, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.