From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amsel v. N.Y. Conv. Cen. Oper. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

March 24, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered June 9, 2008, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


Defendant established prima facie its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it had rained earlier in the day and was raining at the time of plaintiff's accident and that defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the tracked-in water from accumulating by placing mats on the lobby floor and mopping the floor throughout the day and had neither actual nor constructive notice of the particular wet condition that allegedly caused the accident ( see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204). In opposition, plaintiff's failed to raise a triable issue of fact.


Summaries of

Amsel v. N.Y. Conv. Cen. Oper. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Amsel v. N.Y. Conv. Cen. Oper. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE AMSEL et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CONVENTION CENTER OPERATING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
875 N.Y.S.2d 476

Citing Cases

Pomahac v. Trizechahn 1065 Avenue

The undisputed evidence demonstrates that two mats were placed in the entranceway of the building, one in the…

Decongelio v. Metro Fund, LLC

II. ABM'S MOTIONIn a premises liability case involving an injury caused by a dangerous condition created by…