Wims v. River Park Bronx Apts., Inc.

Wims v River Park Bronx Apts., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05869 October 8, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Sean Wims, Plaintiff-Respondent, v River Park Bronx Apartments, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants, DV Group, LLC, Defendant-Respondent. [And Third-Party Actions] Decided and Entered: October 08, 2026 Index No. 301041/16|Appeal No. 7188|Case No. 2025-06928| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, JJ. Goetz Schenker Blee & Wiederhorn, LLP, New York (Jeffrey Rubinstein of counsel), for appellants. Cellino Law, New York (Casey Fundaro of counsel), for Sean Wims, respondent. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Andrew Cohen, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants River Park Bronx Apartments, Inc., River Park Residences, L.P., River Park Bronx Apartments Developers, LLC, and Reliant Realty Services, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that defendants had actual notice of the defect that caused his injury and that the defect was not repaired (see Dunn v 6-8 St. Nicholas Realty Corp., 204 AD3d 466, 466 [1st Dept 2022]; Singh v United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y. City, Inc., 72 AD3d 272, 275 [1st Dept 2010]). According to the testimonial, documentary and photographic evidence, there was a leak in the wall of the premises, which plaintiff complained about on numerous occasions and which defendants' employees observed more than six months before a portion of the adjacent ceiling fell. Defendants failed to create an issue of fact on the issue of notice, and summary judgment was warranted because they did not establish that they properly remedied the condition (see Dunn, 204 AD3d at 467; Toussaint v Ocean Ave. Apt. Assoc., LLC, 144 AD3d 664, 665 [2d Dept 2016]). Defendants' argument that plaintiff's history of blocking access to the apartment deprived them of reasonable time to remedy the condition and/or rendered plaintiff a proximate cause of the accident is unpersuasive. Although there were issues surrounding defendants' ability to access the apartment in the spring and summer of 2014, defendants' own internal emails demonstrate that plaintiff had placed his belongings in storage and vacated the apartment as of September 30 of that year to permit defendants over one week of access during which they could perform rehabilitation work. There is no evidence that the work included remedying the leak; rather, it appears that defendants simply plastered and painted over the ceiling, two weeks before the accident occurred (see e.g. Martinez-Garo v Riverbay Corp., 74 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2010]; Rodriguez v Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 44 AD3d 216, 223 [1st Dept 2007]). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 8, 2026