Alami v. 215 East 68th St.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07591,931 N.Y.S.2d 647,88 A.D.3d 924
• Parties: Emilia ALAMI, appellant,v.215 EAST 68TH STREET, L.P., et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 924

931 N.Y.S.2d 647

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07591

Emilia ALAMI, appellant,

v.215 EAST 68TH STREET, L.P., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 25, 2011.

David Resnick & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C. [Jay L.T. Breakstone], of counsel), for appellant.Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. O'Gorman of counsel), for respondents 215 East 68th Street, L.P., and Rudin Management Co., Inc. Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondents Jeffrey L. Klein, Cara L. Klein, and Claudette Lathom.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered December 31, 2009, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Jeffrey L. Klein, Cara L. Klein, and Claudette Lathom which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered January 5, 2010, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants 215 East 68th Street, L.P., and Rudin Management Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

At the time of the accident that is the subject of this action, the plaintiff was employed by a family which leased an apartment in a building allegedly owned by the defendant 215 East 68th Street, L.P. (hereinafter 215), and operated by the defendant Rudin Management Co., Inc. (hereinafter Rudin). She allegedly sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell on laundry detergent that had spilled on the floor in the common laundry room located in the basement of the building. The liquid detergent had been spilled by the two-year-old son of the defendants Jeffrey L. Klein and Cara L. Klein (hereinafter together the Kleins), who was being supervised by his nanny, Claudette Latham, sued herein as Claudette Lathom.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of 215 and Rudin which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Totten v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 653, 871 N.Y.S.2d 179; Cohn v. Mayfair Supermarkets, 305 A.D.2d 528, 759 N.Y.S.2d 131). “Once a defendant has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the defendant has a reasonable time to undertake remedial actions that are reasonable and appropriate under all of the circumstances” ( Friedman v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, 302 A.D.2d 491, 491–492, 755 N.Y.S.2d 412; see Stasiak v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 281 A.D.2d 533, 722 N.Y.S.2d 251; LoSquadro v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn, 253 A.D.2d 856, 678 N.Y.S.2d 347).

Here, the defendants 215 and Rudin submitted evidence establishing that the incident occurred approximately 10 minutes after the laundry detergent was spilled. They also submitted evidence that Latham reported the spill to an elevator operator less than five minutes before the plaintiff fell. Under the circumstances of this case, the submissions of the defendants 215 and Rudin established, prima facie, that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 A.D.3d 522, 523, 855 N.Y.S.2d 155; Ulu v. ITT...