From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

George v. Big V. Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of cola-colored liquid that was on the floor of the defendant's store next to a shelf displaying bottles of cola-flavored soft drinks. After the plaintiff was deposed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that it had notice of the defective condition. The plaintiff testified that she did not know how long the spillage was on the floor, did not know where it came from, and had not seen it before she stepped into it.

To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it ( see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-838; Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626). The defendant met its burden of establishing that it neither created the dangerous condition which caused the accident nor had a reasonable time within which to remedy such condition after the alleged notice ( supra; Strowman v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 252 A.D.2d 384; Bernard v. Waldbaum, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 596). Absent any proof that would warrant a finding that the puddle had been on the floor for any appreciable length of time so as to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it, the defendant cannot be charged with constructive notice ( see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, supra; Masotti v. Waldbaums Supermarket, 227 A.D.2d 532, 533). Furthermore, the plaintiff's assertions that a nearby seafood clerk allegedly told her that she had prior notice of the puddle on the floor is inadmissible, as the defendant established that the seafood clerk did not have the authority to speak on behalf of the defendant ( see, Salkey v. New York Racing Assn., 243 A.D.2d 621; Williams v. Waldbaums Supermarkets, 236 A.D.2d 605; Masotti v. Waldbaums Supermarket, supra, at 533; Gottlieb v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, 226 A.D.2d 344; Lowen v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 223 A.D.2d 534).

Mangano, P. J., Joy; Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

George v. Big V. Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1999
258 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

George v. Big V. Supermarkets, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JENNIFER GEORGE, Appellant, v. BIG V. SUPERMARKETS, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 609

Citing Cases

Tyrrell v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

In finding the statement admissible, Supreme Court relied upon a finding that the employee had authority to…

Marte v. New York City Transit Authority

The puddle could have occurred as a result of water dripping from the clothing or umbrellas of other…