| Curry v 1716 Ave. T Realty, LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08554 [89 AD3d 978] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Karen Curry et al., as Administratrices of the Estate of Stevan BrettCurry, Deceased, Appellants, v 1716 Avenue T Realty, LLC, Respondent. (And aThird-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.) Dawn McLaughlin, Appellant, v 1716 Avenue TRealty, LLC, Respondent. (Action No. 2) |
—[*1] Friedman Khafif & Sanchez, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew M. Friedman of counsel), forappellant in action No. 2. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP (Gannon, Lawrence & Rosenfarb, New York, N.Y. [Lisa L.Gokhulsingh], of counsel), for respondent in action Nos. 1 and 2.
In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries,which were joined for trial, (1) the plaintiffs in action No. 1 appeal from an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated May 12, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action, and (2) the plaintiff in action No. 2 separatelyappeals from an order of the same court, also dated May 12, 2010, which granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
In the early morning hours of June 2, 2007, a fire broke out in an apartment unit of a building inBrooklyn owned by the defendant, 1716 Avenue T Realty, LLC. As of that date, the plaintiff DawnMcLaughlin had leased the apartment from the defendant for approximately 10 years. Stevan BrettCurry (hereinafter the decedent) had lived in the apartment with McLaughlin for virtually her entiretenancy. As a result of the fire, McLaughlin allegedly sustained personal injuries and the decedent died.
In action No. 1, the administrators of the decedent's estate (hereinafter the Estate) sought torecover damages from the defendant, inter alia, for personal injuries and wrongful death. [*2]In action No. 2, McLaughlin (hereinafter together with the Estate, theplaintiffs) sought to recover damages from the defendant, among other things, for negligence. Theactions were joined for trial. In both actions, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendantnegligently failed to provide an operational smoke detector in the apartment. The defendant separatelymoved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of the two actions. The Supreme Courtgranted the motions. We affirm.
The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in bothactions by submitting the deposition testimony of the building's superintendent and McLaughlin, whichtogether demonstrated that the defendant complied with Administrative Code of the City of New York§ 27-2045 (a) (1) in that the apartment contained an operational smoke detector at the timeMcLaughlin began her tenancy (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2045 [a][1]; Carter v Grenadier Realty, 83 AD3d640, 641 [2011]; Fairclough v 679 Magenta, 309 AD2d 619 [2003]; Fields v S & WRealty Assoc., 301 AD2d 625 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue offact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motions for summary judgmentdismissing the complaints. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.