DocketNumber: No. CV00-0504976S
Citation Numbers: 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 2478-a
Judges: BRYANT, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/27/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
This matter was heard by the Honorable Andre Kocay who died prior to issuing a decision. Upon review of and familiarization of myself with the proceedings, I issue this decision pursuant to General Statutes §
The plaintiff, Julia Boice, filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2001, alleging negligence and nuisance in four counts against the defendants, the City of New Britain (City), the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) and Metro Leasing Corporation, doing business as Dura Construction Company, (Dura), for injuries she suffered from a fall on a cracked sidewalk located in the City of New Britain. Boice alleges that the YWCA hired Dura to do construction work near the sidewalk and that the work caused a dangerous condition on the sidewalk. Counts one (negligence) and three (nuisance) are against the City. Counts two (negligence) and four (nuisance) are each against both the YWCA and Dura.
On March 23, 2001, the YWCA filed a motion to strike count four (nuisance) of the amended complaint. The motion to strike was denied by the court, Graham, J., on April 20, 2001.
On September 4, 2001, the YWCA filed an answer and a special defense alleging that Boice was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout as she walked on the sidewalk and that this negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about her injury.
On September 18, 2002, the YWCA filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it did not owe a duty to Boice. The YWCA includes a memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, and it includes the following exhibits: (1) a copy of the amended complaint; and CT Page 2478-b (2) an uncertified excerpt of Boice's deposition testimony.
On October 25, 2002, Boice filed a memorandum in opposition to the YWCA's motion for summary judgment. Boice included the following exhibits in support of her memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment: (1) a copy of the notice of injury signed by the New Britain Town Clerk's Office that identifies the location of the cracked sidewalk; (2) twelve unverified photographs of the sidewalk and surrounding area; (3) an unverified copy of the ambulance dispatch record; and (4) an uncertified copy of her deposition. Boice argues that the allegations in her complaint of a positive act by the YWCA raise a material issue of fact as to whether the YWCA owed her a duty and that the YWCA has failed to supply evidence to refute her allegations. Boice also argues that the YWCA's motion for summary judgment was filed after the case had been scheduled for trial and that the YWCA did not seek the court's permission pursuant to General Statutes § 17-44 and, therefore, the motion for summary judgment should be denied.
The pleadings and other documents presented reveal the following undisputed facts. On April 30, 1999, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Boice was walking on the sidewalk along Glen Street in a northeasterly direction in front of a building owned by the YWCA. (Boice's Amended Complaint, Fourth Count, ¶ 4; Boice Deposition, pp. 13, 15.) Boice tripped over a cracked sidewalk and fell and was taken by ambulance to New Britain General Hospital where she was diagnosed with personal injuries. (Boice Deposition, pp. 16, 24, 25.) The YWCA hired Dura to do construction work on or around the area of 22 Glen Street. (YWCA's Answer to the Amended Complaint, Second Count, ¶ 3.)
The YWCA moves for summary judgment on the ground that it did not owe a duty to Boice and that Boice has given inconsistent locations for the sidewalk defect in her deposition testimony and, therefore, she cannot prove that the YWCA acted in a positive manner on the sidewalk at the location where she fell. Boice argues in opposition that she has raised a material issue of fact by her allegations in the complaint that the YWCA acted in a positive manner on the sidewalk which caused her injury.
"An abutting landowner can be held liable . . . in negligence or public nuisance for injuries resulting from the unsafe condition of a public sidewalk caused by the landowner's positive acts." Abramczyk v. Abbey,
In Gambardella v. Kaoud, supra,
Boice's amended complaint alleges that the YWCA "[c]aused . . . said public sidewalk to be . . . defective, broken . . . uneven, unsafe, and dangerous for the use of the public . . ." (Boice's Amended Complaint, Second Count, ¶ 4.) The YWCA does not include affidavits denying the alleged positive act, but relies on Boice's deposition testimony, arguing that the inconsistent locations given for the sidewalk defect preclude Boice from proving the YWCA's positive act. Boice's deposition states, "I came out of the parking lot, and turned right, up the sidewalk, and just before I reached the steps, I tripped on that sidewalk." (Boice Deposition, p. 15.) Later in the deposition Boice is asked, "And you walked past this whole sidewalk, which is the garden area, and we're getting toward where the stairs are, and that's where you . . ." (Boice Deposition, p. 48.) Boice answers, "That's where I tripped." (Boice Deposition, p. 48.) Boice is also asked, "Now looking at these photographs, and here's one that may be more of the general area, now you're not able to, as you sit here today, identify a particular crack, from your firsthand knowledge?" (Boice Deposition, p. 47-48.) Boice answers, "Right here, this one here shows I went over into here and hit this curbing here." (Boice Deposition, p. 48.) Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, together with the inferences that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, the deposition testimony relied on by the YWCA does not provide sufficient evidence to contradict the allegations of the amended complaint and establish that the YWCA did not act in a positive manner on the sidewalk at the location where Boice fell.
Based on the holding of Gambardella v. Kaoud, Boice has alleged a positive act by the YWCA as an abutting landowner, and the YWCA has not raised sufficient evidence to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied.
BY THE COURT Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
CT Page 2478-e