From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dember v. Winthrop University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 6, 2000.

May 15, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 14, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Warner Joselson, New York, N.Y. (Karl E. Scheuerman of counsel), for appellants.

Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera Cinquemani, P.C., Mineola, N Y (Rosemary Cinquemani of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Muriel Dember (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) alleges that she slipped and fell on the tile floor in the lobby of the Winthrop University Hospital (hereinafter the defendant). She claims that she slipped on water tracked in by people entering the lobby during a heavy snowstorm, and that the defendant had constructive notice of this condition.

It is well settled that in order to establish constructive notice, the plaintiff must establish that the dangerous condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient time before the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836). Further, the general awareness that a dangerous condition may be present is legally insufficient to constitute notice of a particular condition (see, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; McDuffie v. Fleet Fin. Group, Inc., ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Feb. 28, 2000]). Here, after the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the injured plaintiff's assertion that the defendant had a general awareness that water could accumulate on the lobby floor during a heavy snow was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, McDuffie v. Fleet Fin. Group, Inc., supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

JOY, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dember v. Winthrop University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Dember v. Winthrop University Hospital

Case Details

Full title:MURIEL DEMBER, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL…

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

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 330

Citing Cases

Yearwood v. Cushman Wakefield, Inc.

In the absence of proof as to how long this puddle of water was on the floor, there is no evidence to permit…

Welles v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth

ponse to the motion, the plaintiff contended that the defendants were aware of a recurring condition of slush…