From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grimes v. Golub Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 3, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Hughes, J.).


We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. In a case such as this involving a slip and fall accident, to establish a prima facie case plaintiff was required to show either actual or constructive notice of the condition causing the fall and this necessitated proof that defendant created the condition or that it had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation (see, Torri v Big V, 147 A.D.2d 743). This plaintiff failed to do. At her examination before trial, plaintiff testified that she did not see the substance (possibly grapefruit juice) prior to the fall and that she did not know how it got on the floor or how long it had been there (see, Benware v Big V Supermarkets, 177 A.D.2d 846). She also admitted that she saw no footprints through the substance. In the absence of any proof of how long the substance was on the floor before plaintiff fell, she may not rely on a theory of constructive notice (see, Torri v Big V, supra; Anderson v Klein's Foods, 139 A.D.2d 904, affd 73 N.Y.2d 835). There was also no showing that defendant created the condition or that it had received any reports that the substance was on the floor (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 A.D.2d 246, affd on opn below 64 N.Y.2d 670). The testimony at most showed that defendant's grocery manager learned of the condition after the fall (see, Fasolino v Charming Stores, 77 N.Y.2d 847). Insofar as there was no evidence that the substance was on the floor for a sufficient length of time for defendant to have discovered and remedied it, plaintiff failed to make an evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue of constructive notice (see, Benware v Big V Supermarkets, supra). Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Yesawich Jr., J.P., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Grimes v. Golub Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Grimes v. Golub Corporation

Case Details

Full title:VICTORIA GRIMES, Appellant, v. GOLUB CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
590 N.Y.S.2d 590

Citing Cases

WALKER v. WALSAM EMP LLC

In the absence of any evidence of how long an alleged dangerous condition existed prior to the accident,…

Stephanides v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

Plaintiff is also '"required to show either actual or constructive notice of the condition causing the fall…