From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arrufat v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 2007
45 A.D.3d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-07958.

November 20, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered July 20, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal Klein, LLP (David Horowitz, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Steven J. Horowitz] of counsel), for appellant.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harry Steinberg and Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent Temco Service Industries, Inc.

Before: Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell down several stairs at a school owned by the defendant City of New York and managed by the defendant Temco Service Industries, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The plaintiff testified that she did not see any water before the accident, but after she fell her pants were wet and she saw "dirty water" on the stairs. She subsequently commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent in permitting the stairs to remain wet and slippery. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted their motion, finding that the defendants established that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the wet stairs, and that the plaintiffs evidence was purely speculative. There was no claim that the defendants created the condition.

The deposition testimony submitted by the defendants indicating that the stairs were checked regularly throughout the day and that no complaints had been received established, prima facie, that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard ( see Grant v Radamar Meat, 294 AD2d 398). In response, the plaintiffs evidence was not specific enough to raise any triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had or should have had notice of the particular wetness that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall ( see Stumacher v Waldbaum, Inc., 274 AD2d 572). Rather, it merely established a general awareness that the floors may have been wet ( see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969; Gonzalez v Jenel Mgt. Corp., 11 AD3d 656). Further, the plaintiff failed to show by specific factual references that the defendants had knowledge of a specific recurring condition. The evidence proffered only referred to the condition of wet stairs in very general terms ( see Green v City of New York, 34 AD3d 528).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Arrufat v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 2007
45 A.D.3d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Arrufat v. New York

Case Details

Full title:Luz ARRUFAT, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 20, 2007

Citations

45 A.D.3d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9189
846 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

Wartski v. C.W. Post Campus of Long Island

The plaintiff alleges she was injured when she slipped and fell on water and icy snow from a prior storm that…

Wierzbicki v. City of N.Y.

When a motion for summary judgment is based on lack of notice, the movants have the initial burden of making…