Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC, 111 N.E.3d 322, 86 N.Y.S.3d 428, 32 N.Y.3d 1010 (2018)

Oct. 16, 2018 · New York Court for the Correction of Errors · No. 144 SSM 19

111 N.E.3d 322, 86 N.Y.S.3d 428, 32 N.Y.3d 1010

Marie BRADLEY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Bradley, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
HWA 1290 III LLC, et al., Respondents.

No. 144 SSM 19

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided October 16, 2018

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellants.

Sabatini & Associates, New York City (Richard J. Sabatini of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order affirmed, with costs. To the extent that a violation of standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) constitutes evidence of negligence (see Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. , 67 N.Y.2d 328, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696, 493 N.E.2d 920 [1986] ; Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52, 436 N.E.2d 502 [1982] ), plaintiffs' reliance on those standards was proper. However, plaintiffs nevertheless failed to raise a triable question of fact as to whether defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Garcia took no part.