Opinion
06-29-2017
Christine O'SULLIVAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 7–ELEVEN, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Sobel Pevzner, LLC, Huntington (Nicole Licata–McCord of counsel), for respondents.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.
Sobel Pevzner, LLC, Huntington (Nicole Licata–McCord of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on an accumulation of slush in front of a counter in a 7–Eleven store, during an ongoing snowstorm. Defendants were not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy for an alleged slippery condition caused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm (see Richardson v. S.I.K. Assoc., L.P., 102 A.D.3d 554, 958 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept.2013] ). Moreover, defendants demonstrated that they employed reasonable maintenance measures to prevent such a condition (see Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 A.D.3d 462, 466, 884 N.Y.S.2d 402 [1st Dept.2009] ), by laying out a mat, placing an orange cone on the floor, and regularly mopping the store during the day, including within 15 minutes before plaintiff's accident. These actions were "reasonable measures to remedy a hazardous condition" (Toner v. National
R.R. Passenger Corp., 71 A.D.3d 454, 455, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873 [1st Dept.2010] ).
The record also shows that defendants did not have constructive notice of the dangerous wet condition. The fact that it was snowing, with water and slush tracked in, does not constitute notice of a particular dangerous situation, warranting more than the laying of floor mats (see Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency, 4 A.D.3d 204, 771 N.Y.S.2d 646 [1st Dept.2004] ).
Furthermore, defendant 7–Eleven, Inc. is not liable by virtue of its franchise agreement with defendant Sakong, pursuant to which it relinquished control of the day-to-day operations of the store, including maintenance, to Sakong (see Schoenwandt v. Jamfro Corp., 261 A.D.2d 117, 689 N.Y.S.2d 461 [1st Dept.1999] ).
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.