From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Snauffer v. 1177 Avenue of Americas LP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 30, 2010
78 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3707.

November 30, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 21, 2009, which, in this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor in the lobby of defendants' building, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Harris/Law, New York (Matthew Gaisi of counsel), for appellant.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho (James K. O'Sullivan of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.


Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they neither created nor had notice of the alleged wet condition that caused plaintiff to slip ( see e.g. Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although it was raining at the time of plaintiffs fall and defendants had placed mats in front of other entrances of the building and wet floor warning signs on the lobby floor, this does not require a finding that defendants had actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendants demonstrated that the warning signs were put out as a safety precaution and not in response to complaints regarding the condition of the floor where plaintiff fell ( cf. Hilsman v Sarwil Assoc. L.P., 13 AD3d 692, 695).

Furthermore, the affidavit of plaintiffs coworker failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had actual notice of the alleged defect because the affiant did not state that any of her observations were made on the date of plaintiffs accident. Nor is the affidavit of plaintiffs expert probative of the condition of the accident location because it is unclear when the expert inspected the location and thus, there is no evidence that the conditions he observed were the same as those that existed at the time plaintiff fell ( see Garcia v The Jesuits of Fordham, 6 AD3d 163, 166).


Summaries of

Snauffer v. 1177 Avenue of Americas LP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 30, 2010
78 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Snauffer v. 1177 Avenue of Americas LP

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. SNAUFFER, Appellant, v. 1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS LP et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
913 N.Y.S.2d 261
913 N.Y.S.2d 26

Citing Cases

Coleman v. Fenton Assoc., LLC

Defendant claims that it cannot be held liable for damages, based on established criteria for negligence in…