Birnbaum v. New York Racing Association, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 December 2008 |
Docket Number | 2006-05069. |
Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 09741,57 A.D.3d 598,869 N.Y.S.2d 222 |
Parties | MARION BIRNBAUM, Appellant, v. NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
"A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing 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" (Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d 572, 572 [2006]; see Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; Stumacher v Waldbaum, Inc., 274 AD2d 572 [2000]). Only after the movant has satisfied this threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition (see Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409 [2004]). "To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the] defendant's employees to discover and remedy it" (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]).
To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the 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 (see Porco v Marshalls Dept. Stores, 30 AD3d 284, 285 [2006]; Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]; Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d at 573; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d at 437; Lorenzo v Plitt Theatres, 267 AD2d 54, 56 [1999]). The defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden. The deposition testimony of the defendant's assistant cleaning manager merely referred to the subject racetrack's general daily cleaning practices. The assistant cleaning...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC
...Pryzywalny v. New York City Tr. Auth., 69 A.D.3d 598, 599, 892 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2nd Dept.2010]; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2nd Dept.2008] ). As a result of Henegan's failure to meet its prima facie burden of proof as to the Labor Law sect......
-
Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Mgmt. Corp..
...actual or constructive notice ( see Slikas v. Cyclone Realty, LLC, 78 A.D.3d at 149, 908 N.Y.S.2d 117; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222; Williams v. SNS Realty of Long Is. Inc., 70 A.D.3d 1034, 1035–1036, 895 N.Y.S.2d 528; Pryzywalny v. New Y......
-
Giantomaso v. T. Weiss Realty Corp.
...at 456, 970 N.Y.S.2d 284 ; Levine v. Amverserve Assn., Inc., 92 A.D.3d at 729, 938 N.Y.S.2d 593 ; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ). “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspectio......
-
Carey v. Walt Whitman Mall, LLC
...tender evidence about the ''particularized or specific inspection or []cleaning procedure" used (Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc.. 57 A.D.3d 598. 599. 869 N.Y.S.2d 222. 223-224 [2d Dept 2008]; see Fernandez v Festival Fun Parks, LLC. 122 A.D.3d 794. 996 N.Y.S.2d 676 [2d Dept 2014]), a......