Horowitz v. 763 Eastern Associates
Justice Bert Bunyan
Defendants moved for summary judgment in their favor directing judgment; while plaintiffs, including infant plaintiff Horowitz cross-moved for a unified trial on liability and damages. The action arose from a suit by plaintiffs alleging negligence. Horowitz was playing tag with his brother in the lobby of the building where plaintiffs lived. While trying to "hurry away" from his brother, Horowitz lost his balance and fell into a glass pane that shattered, resulting in physical injuries. Plaintiffs argued if the pane were made of safety glass, even had it shattered, the injuries would not have been as severe. Defendants denied any defective condition existed, contending safety glass was used on the subject pane. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of General Business Law §389-o by failing to install safety glass in an area statutorily defined as a hazardous location. 763 Eastern made a requisite prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment by showing it neither created a dangerous condition nor was on notice such existed. Moving defendants showed that safety glass was used in the installation of the renovated entryway. In granting dismissal, the court ruled none of the affidavits plaintiffs relied on sufficiently raised an issue of fact.