Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

2 Citing cases

  1. Quarles v. Columbia Sussex Corp.

    997 F. Supp. 327 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that "general awareness" that liquid might be spilled on marble floor is legally insufficient to support a finding that owner had constructive notice of a specific condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall

    The defendants are ultimately charged with establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law. See Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 518, 625 N.Y.S.2d 536, 537 (1st Dep't 1995); Colt v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co. Inc., 209 A.D.2d 294, 618 N.Y.S.2d 721, 722 (1st Dep't 1994). 1. Actual Notice of the Dangerous Condition

  2. Joyce Gordon v. Waldbaum, Inc.

    231 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 23 times

    The court correctly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence it submitted failed to demonstrate absence of notice as a matter of law ( see, Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 214 AD2d 518; Colt v Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294). Rather, the plaintiff asserted in her deposition testimony that a large spill of dish detergent remained on a supermarket aisle for 30 to 35 minutes notwithstanding that she had notified a store employee, and no action was taken to clean the spill prior to her fall ( see, e.g., Negri v Stop Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Catanzaro v King Kullen Grocery Co., 194 AD2d 584; Huth v Allied Maintenance Corp., 143 AD2d 634; Restey v Victory Mkts., 127 AD2d 987; Cameron v Bohack Co., 27 AD2d 362). Therefore, the evidence established the existence of issues of fact.