From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Rourke v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1999
260 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 20, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).


Absent any claim that defendants created or had actual notice of the one-foot-long, linear-shaped "smear" plaintiff saw after regaining his balance, and absent any evidence that there was any water on the floor near where plaintiff slipped other than this smear, there is no non-speculative basis on which to determine whether, and for how long, the smear was on the floor before plaintiff walked into the building, or, indeed, whether the water was dripped or tracked onto the floor of the, lobby by plaintiff himself. In other words, no issue of fact is raised as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the smear by virtue of its having been "visible and apparent and [in existence] for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit * * * defendant[s'] employees to discover and remedy it" ( Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). The fact that it had been raining for several hours prior to the accident "does not, without more, permit an inference of constructive notice ( see, Harper v. United States, 949 F. Supp. 130, 133-134; Hamilton v. Rite Aid Pharms., 234 A.D.2d 778, 778-779; Kovelsky v. City Univ., 221 A.D.2d 234; Stoerzinger v. Big V Supermarkets, 188 A.D.2d 790). Nor can liability be predicated upon the theory of a recurring dangerously slippery condition routinely left unaddressed absent any evidence that the floor was actually slippery before plaintiff walked into the building on the day of the accident ( cf., Megally v. 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 A.D.2d 346), and, for the same reason, the affidavit of plaintiff's expert, opining that the lobby floor was of a kind that becomes dangerously slippery when wet, is unavailing to raise an issue of fact. Finally, any performance specifications set forth in the contract under which building maintenance services were provided cannot raise the standard of reasonable care imposed by prevailing law ( see, Lesser v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 157 A.D.2d 352, 356).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

O'Rourke v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 1999
260 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

O'Rourke v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN O'ROURKE, Appellant, v. WILLIAMSON, PICKET, GROSS, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 528

Citing Cases

Macklowe Prop. v. Qual. Bldgs. Serv., Corp.

Reading the testimony of all parties in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the record indicates that…

Lapadula v. J.A.A. Grocery Corp.

46's Cross-Motion Specifically in a trip and fall action, in order to establish a prima facie case of…