From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wellington v. Manmall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2010
70 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 1646.

February 2, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered January 12, 2009, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for appellant.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman, P.C., New York (Marcia K. Raicus of counsel), for Manmall, LLC and HRO Asset Management, LLC, respondents.

Eustace Marquez, White Plains (Heath A. Bender of counsel), for Cushman Wakefield, LLC, respondent.

Gallo Vitucci Klar, New York (Kimberly A. Ricciardi of counsel), for Onesource Holdings, LLC, respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a drying, sticky brown substance on a staircase outside the food court of the Manhattan Mall. She testified at her deposition that she did not see the alleged sticky substance on the stairway before she fell. Plaintiffs evidence was insufficient to show that defendants had actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the stairway or that the condition had been visible and apparent for long enough to permit defendants to discover and remedy it, and, in opposing the motion, plaintiff did not identify any evidence tending to show either actual or constructive notice.

As previously stated by this Court, "[w]hile a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating entitlement to dismissal as a matter of law, there is no need for a defendant to submit evidentiary materials establishing a lack of notice where the plaintiff failed to claim the existence of notice of the condition" ( Frank v Time Equities, 292 AD2d 186, 186). In other words, a defendant is not required to prove lack of notice where the plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence of notice ( see e.g. Crawford v MRI Broadway Rental, 254 AD2d 68). In this case, therefore, defendants' summary judgment motions were properly granted.


Summaries of

Wellington v. Manmall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2010
70 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Wellington v. Manmall

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN WELLINGTON, Appellant, v. MANMALL, LLC, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 717
894 N.Y.S.2d 396

Citing Cases

Mendoza v. Highpoint Associates, IX, LLC

The application of the remedy of preclusion to a specific category of evidence, as applied against a…

Vazquez v. Genovese Drug Stores Inc.

At her deposition, she testified that everything looked “normal,” and that she did not see the raised portion…