Opinion
NO. 167 SSM 35.
Decided November 18, 2004.
Appeal, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered February 26, 2004. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippman, J.), which had granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, (2) denied the motion, (3) reinstated the complaint, and (4) remanded the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly arising out of a slip and fall on a wet subway platform. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's notice of claim was deficient because she did not identify the source of the alleged puddle on the floor of the station, and that the allegation that plaintiff's fall was caused by the wet slippery condition of the floor was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish defendant's liability.
Bennett v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 265, affirmed.
Steve S. Efron, New York City ( Renee L. Cyr of counsel), and Wallace D. Gossett for appellant.
Lonuzzi Woodland, LLP, Brooklyn ( Rebecca Woodland of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur in memorandum.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Plaintiff's notice of claim provided information sufficient to apprise defendant New York City Transit Authority of the place, time and nature of her accident in order to "investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of [the] claim" ( see Brown v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 389, 392). Moreover, triable issues of fact exist whether the Transit Authority had constructive notice that a continuing water condition existed on the platform of its subway station and negligently failed to remedy it.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.