From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scirica v. Ariola Pastry Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1991
171 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 25, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Pasquale Scirica slipped and fell while inside the defendant pastry shop, and commenced this action to recover damages for an injury to his knee, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant failed to maintain the floor in a safe condition. We conclude that the defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment, and the complaint should have been dismissed.

The plaintiffs contended that the dangerous condition consisted of wax paper which had fallen on the shop's terrazzo floor. The record reveals that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition or that the defendant or his employees created any dangerous condition (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 64 N.Y.2d 670, affg 99 A.D.2d 246; Torri v Big V, 147 A.D.2d 743). In his deposition testimony, the plaintiff stated that he had been inside the shop for about 10 minutes before he fell. When his knee hit the floor, he looked down and saw a piece of wax paper. He had not noticed the wax paper before he fell and did not recall if the wax paper was dirty. Whether the wax paper had been on the floor for more than a matter of minutes or seconds would be purely speculative. As the plaintiffs failed to offer evidence tending to show how long the paper had been on the floor before the accident, or that the defendant's employees created the condition, they cannot establish a prima facie case against the defendant (see, Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., supra; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, this case is distinguishable from Weisenthal v Pickman ( 153 A.D.2d 849) as there was no evidence offered of a recurring problem of an accumulation of debris in the shop. The owner of the shop stated in his deposition that the floor was swept of debris at least once daily and more often if needed by the employees. Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scirica v. Ariola Pastry Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1991
171 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Scirica v. Ariola Pastry Shop

Case Details

Full title:PASQUALE SCIRICA et al., Respondents, v. ARIOLA PASTRY SHOP, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 25, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 537

Citing Cases

Zuppardo v. State

"To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient…

Snyder v. Golub Corporation

Defendants appeal. We reverse. While this Court has recognized that constructive notice of a dangerous…