From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Bay Shore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 2008
55 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

holding that plaintiff's speculation that defendant's employees caused wet condition by mopping a floor did not create an issue of fact

Summary of this case from Vasquez v. United States

Opinion

No. 2007-04703.

October 21, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, (R. Doyle, J.), dated March 27, 2007, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Alatsas Taub, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Asher Taub of counsel), for appellant.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Gregory A. Cascino of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Covello, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on a wet hallway floor in the defendant Bay Shore Middle School. The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against the Bay Shore Middle School and the defendant Bay Shore Union Free School District alleging, inter alia, that the defendants' employees created the wet condition by mopping the floor.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall action must demonstrate that the defendant either created the condition that caused the accident, or had actual or constructive notice thereof ( see Luciani v Waldbaum, Inc., 304 AD2d 537; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 297 AD2d 277). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the wet condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall ( see Gwyn v 575 Fifth Ave. Assoc., 12 AD3d 403, 404; Seneglia v FPL Foods, 273 AD2d 221). In opposition, the plaintiff, who speculated that the defendants' employees created the wet condition by mopping the floor within 15 minutes immediately preceding his fall ( see Glacy v 1109 Manhattan Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 8 AD3d 227), failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Gwyn v 575 Fifth Ave. Assoc., 12 AD3d at 404). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Bay Shore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 2008
55 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

holding that plaintiff's speculation that defendant's employees caused wet condition by mopping a floor did not create an issue of fact

Summary of this case from Vasquez v. United States
Case details for

Cunningham v. Bay Shore

Case Details

Full title:HORACE CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. BAY SHORE MIDDLE SCHOOL et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 2008

Citations

55 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8085
865 N.Y.S.2d 691

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. United States

Here, Plaintiff's suggestion that Johnson must have caused the saddle to become raised above the ground,…

Samuels v. Chap A Nosh of Cedarhurst, Inc.

The plaintiff Miriam Samuels allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on what she described as a…