Milone v. City of New York

Background

Jacqueline R. Milone and John Milone visited New York City in December 2022. On December 30, Jacqueline Milone tripped and fell on a yellow rubber or plastic mat on a Sixth Avenue sidewalk near Bryant Park. The mat was about eight feet long, three feet wide, and raised approximately three inches above the ground. It had black sloped edges, and several similar mats were nearby. Jacqueline Milone testified that she did not see the mat before falling and noticed it only afterward.

The Milones asserted a negligence claim for Jacqueline’s injuries and a loss-of-consortium claim by John Milone. Bryant Park Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not responsible for the condition that caused the fall. The court stated that it did not need to decide whether Bryant Park Corporation owed the Milones a duty concerning the sidewalk because, even assuming that it did, the mat was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must generally view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but unsupported assertions do not create a factual dispute sufficient to require a trial.

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury caused by the breach. In premises-liability cases, a property owner’s duties include warning about hazards and maintaining reasonably safe property. New York law does not require protection against or warnings about a condition that is both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the mat was open and obvious. It was several feet in size, bright yellow with black edges, raised about three inches, and one of several mats in the area. Based on these undisputed characteristics, the court concluded that the mat was readily observable by a person reasonably using ordinary senses and that no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.

The court also found that the mat was not inherently dangerous. It relied on the mat’s appearance and characteristics, photographs, the clear and sunny weather, and the absence of evidence of other accidents or injuries involving the mat. The Milones argued that heavy pedestrian traffic distracted Jacqueline Milone and prevented her from noticing it. The court concluded that her testimony about the distraction was not supported by other evidence and did not create a triable factual issue.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Bryant Park Corporation’s summary-judgment motion on the negligence claim. Because John Milone’s loss-of-consortium claim was derivative of Jacqueline Milone’s negligence claim, the court dismissed it as well. The court dismissed the Milones’ claims against Bryant Park Corporation and the amended complaint with prejudice. The court did not decide the effect of the ruling on Bryant Park Corporation’s third-party claims against the New York City Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and MTA Bus Company, because no party had moved for summary judgment on those claims.