Arcabascio v. We're Assocs., Inc.

Decision Date25 February 2015
Citation4 N.Y.S.3d 125,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01595,125 A.D.3d 904
PartiesAnthony ARCABASCIO, appellant, v. WE'RE ASSOCIATES, INC., also known as The We're Group, et al., respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.

Mulholland, Minion, Duffy, Davey, McNiff & Beyrer, Williston Park, N.Y. (Christine M. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent We're Associates, Inc., also known as The We're Group.

Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph S. Holotka of counsel), for respondents A.C.A. Industries, Inc., and Mayco Building Services, Inc.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated February 15, 2013, which granted the separate motions of the defendant We're Associates, Inc., also known as The We're Group, and the defendants Mayco Building Services, Inc., and A.C.A. Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are denied.

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiff slipped, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Rogers v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 933, 985 N.Y.S.2d 731 ; Armijos v. Vrettos Realty Corp., 106 A.D.3d 847, 965 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; Johnson v. Culinary Inst. of Am.,

95 A.D.3d 1077, 944 N.Y.S.2d 307 ; Alston v. Starrett City Assoc., 72 A.D.3d 711, 898 N.Y.S.2d 859 ; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ). To constitute constructive notice, a dangerous condition must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 ; Cassidy v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 735, 994 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; Rodriguez v. Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 923, 989 N.Y.S.2d 855 ). To meet its burden on the issue of constructive notice, a defendant “must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” (Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d at 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ; see Rodriguez v. Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 119 A.D.3d at 923, 989 N.Y.S.2d 855 ; Johnson v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 95 A.D.3d at 1077, 944 N.Y.S.2d 307 ; Oliveri v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 95 A.D.3d 973, 943 N.Y.S.2d 604 ; Mei Xiao Guo v. Quong Big Realty Corp., 81 A.D.3d 610, 611, 916 N.Y.S.2d 155 ). Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice (see Rodriguez v. Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 119 A.D.3d at 923, 989 N.Y.S.2d 855 ; Rogers v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 117 A.D.3d at 933, 985 N.Y.S.2d 731 ; Herman v. Lifeplex, LLC, 106 A.D.3d 1050, 966 N.Y.S.2d 473 ; Armijos v. Vrettos Realty Corp., 106 A.D.3d at 847, 965 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; Mahoney v. AMC Entertainment, Inc., 103 A.D.3d 855, 959 N.Y.S.2d 752 ; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d at 599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ).

Here, in support of their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Andersen v. El Triunfo Laundromat Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 Junio 2017
    ...of the alleged condition (see DeSalvio v. Suffolk County Water Auth., 127 A.D.3d 804, 806, 7 N.Y.S.3d 331 ; Arcabascio v. We're Assoc., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 904, 905, 4 N.Y.S.3d 125 ). Further, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the cause of the plaintiff's fall cannot be iden......
  • Milorava v. Lord & Taylor Holdings, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 Noviembre 2015
    ...the plaintiff's fall (see Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 12 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; Arcabascio v. We're Assoc., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 904, 904, 4 N.Y.S.3d 125 ; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ). Here, the defendant fail......
  • Ansari v. MB Hamptons, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ...failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the alleged dangerous condition (see Arcabasio v. We're Assoc., Inc., 125 A.D.3d 904, 905, 4 N.Y.S.3d 125 ; Masse v. Parrella, 103 A.D.3d 856, 857, 962 N.Y.S.2d 262 ). Accordingly, the defendant failed to make a prima f......
  • Vaugean v. Lake Park 135 Crossways Park Drive LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 21 Abril 2020
    ... ... REALTORS, LLC d/b/a LAKE PARK, d/b/a CLK-HP and HUNTINGTON PAVING, INC., Defendants. No. 601388/18Supreme Court, Nassau CountyApril 21, 2020 ... perform any other work unless they were called back and that ... it is their practice to plow the lot within a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT