Summary
granting summary judgment where "plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a wet portion of the vestibule floor of the defendants' premises while it was raining outside"
Summary of this case from Connor v. Dolgencorp of N.Y., Inc.Opinion
2015-02977, Index No. 24612/12.
10-14-2015
Ainsley MURRAY, respondent, v. BANCO POPULAR, et al., appellants.
Hoey, King, Epstein, Prezioso & Marquez (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub ], of counsel), for appellants. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Jeremy Gorfinkel of counsel), for respondent.
Hoey, King, Epstein, Prezioso & Marquez (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub ], of counsel), for appellants.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Jeremy Gorfinkel of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated January 22, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a wet portion of the vestibule floor of the defendants' premises while it was raining outside. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created a dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Beceren v. Joan Realty, LLC, 124 A.D.3d 572, 2 N.Y.S.3d 155 ; Payen v. Western Beef Supermarket, 106 A.D.3d 710, 964 N.Y.S.2d 583 ). While a “defendant [is] not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” (Negron v. St. Patrick's Nursing Home, 248 A.D.2d 687, 687, 671 N.Y.S.2d 275 ; see Paduano v. 686 Forest Ave., LLC, 119 A.D.3d 845, 989 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; Sarandrea v. St. Charles Sch., 118 A.D.3d 690, 691, 986 N.Y.S.2d 351 ; Dubensky v. 2900 Westchester Co., LLC, 27 A.D.3d 514, 813 N.Y.S.2d 117 ), a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action (see Mentasi v. Eckerd Drugs, 61 A.D.3d 650, 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 149 ; Ruic v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 858 N.Y.S.2d 761 ; Williams v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 39 A.D.3d 852, 834 N.Y.S.2d 310 ).
Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 ; Paduano v. 686 Forest Ave., LLC, 119 A.D.3d 845, 989 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; Zerilli v. Western Beef Retail, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 681, 898 N.Y.S.2d 614 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “A general awareness that water might be tracked into a building when it rains is insufficient to impute to the defendants constructive notice of the particular dangerous condition” (Musante v. Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 A.D.3d 731, 731, 949 N.Y.S.2d 104 ; see Yearwood v. Cushman & Wakefield, 294 A.D.2d 568, 569, 742 N.Y.S.2d 661 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.