In comparison, on the issue of reasonable compensation for plaintiffs shoulder injuries, plaintiff cites Peterson v. MTA. 155 A.D.3d 795 [2 Dept] (future pain arid suffering award reduced from 1.5 million dollars to $800 000 00 and past pain and suffering affirmed in the amount of $800 000.00, where plaintiff suffered injury requiring surgery to both of her shoulders); Molina v NYCTA 115 A.D.3d 416 [1 Dept] ($600,000 00 past pain and suffering award affirmed and future pain and suffering award of 1.3 million dollars reduced to $800,000 00 over 27 years where plaintiff underwent surgeries to his left and right shoulders) Guillory v Nautilus 208 A.D.2d 336 [1st Dept] (1 2 million dollar pain and suffering past and future award affirmed

In Williams, the defendant failed to present competent evidence that the janitorial schedule was followed on the day of the accident and could not show that it lacked constructive notice of the complained of condition. Similarly, in Molina v New York City Transit Authority, 115 AD3d 416 (1st Dept 2014]), the defendant did not demonstrate that a reasonable cleaning schedule was established and followed prior to the plaintiff's accident, and the defendant was aware that debris on the stairs was not addressed.

"[P]laintiff may satisfy [its burden on summary judgment] by evidence that an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existed in the area of the accident which was routinely left unaddressed by the [defendant]." (O'Connor-Miele v. Barhite & Hohinger, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 106, 650 N.Y.S.2d 717 [1st Dept. 1996] [emphasis added]; Molina v. New York City Tr. Auth, 115 A.D.3d 416, 981 N.Y.S.2d 510 [1st Dept. 2014] [affirming jury's award which was "supported by testimony... that debris on the stairs of the subway station was a recurring condition, of which defendant was aware, that was left unaddressed"] [emphasis added]; Cignarella v. Anjoe-A.J. Mkt., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 560, 890 N.Y.S.2d 542 [1st Dept. 2009] [where plaintiff tripped and fell at a local supermarket when her foot became entangled in a plastic or nylon looped tie wrap, used by defendants to secure newspapers, "plaintiffs established, through the testimony of their nonparty witness, a triable issue of fact as to whether an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existed in the area that was routinely left unaddressed by defendants"] [emphasis added].) In the present case, while the defendants have demonstrated that they did not cause or create the condition, they have not demonstrated the absence of constructive notice.