From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Lawrence Towers Apartments, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 2005
15 A.D.3d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-09588.

February 7, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated May 14, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

"[T]o impose liability for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by [water being] tracked into a building [in rainy weather], a defendant must either have created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition, and a reasonable time to undertake remedial actions" ( Friedman v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, 302 AD2d 491; see Yearwood v. Cushman Wakefield, 294 AD2d 568). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering admissible evidence demonstrating that it took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet condition on its premises caused by the rain ( see Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107; Ford v. Citibank, N.A., 11 AD3d 508). There was no evidence that the defendant created the wet condition, and it "was not obligated to provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into a building in rainy weather" ( Yearwood v. Cushman Wakefield, supra at 568; see Ford v. Citibank, N.A., supra at 508). Further, the defendant demonstrated that it had no actual notice of the particular accumulation of water that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Since there was no evidence that the condition complained of was present for a sufficient period of time for the defendant to have discovered and remedied it, there was no basis for an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition ( see Yearwood v. Cushman Wakefield, supra at 569; see also Ford v. Citibank, N.A., supra at 509; Spooner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 298 AD2d 575, 575-576).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition ( see Ford v. Citibank, N.A., supra at 509; Yearwood v. Cushman Wakefield, supra at 568; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Lawrence Towers Apartments, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 2005
15 A.D.3d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Murphy v. Lawrence Towers Apartments, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DORRETH MURPHY, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE TOWERS APARTMENTS, LLC, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2005

Citations

15 A.D.3d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
789 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

Zerilli v. Western Beef Retail

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. In a slip-and-fall case, the defendant moving for summary…

Taylor v. Jaslove

We reverse. The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by…