Kravets v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Parties | Marina KRAVETS, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William Pager, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David B. Hamm and Miriam Skolnik of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), entered December 9, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On September 25, 2010, at approximately 12:30 p.m., the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the lobby of an apartment building owned and maintained by the defendant New York City Housing Authority (hereinafter the NYCHA) as a result of a wet and dirty condition on the lobby floor. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, and the NYCHA moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted the motion.
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 did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 12 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; Sperling v. Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 129 A.D.3d 826, 827, 12 N.Y.S.3d 131 ; Kiskiel v. Stone Edge Mgt., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 672, 673, 11 N.Y.S.3d 207 ). To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Bergin v. Golshani, 130 A.D.3d 767, 768, 14 N.Y.S.3d 98 ; Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d at 1038, 12 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; Sperling v. Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 129 A.D.3d at 827, 12 N.Y.S.3d 131 ). 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 Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d at 1038, 12 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; Barris v. One Beard St., LLC, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. City of N.Y.
...resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties 134 A.D.3d 678" (Galapo v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 568, 574, 721 N.Y.S.2d 857, 744 N.E.2d 685 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Williams v. City......
-
Quinones v. Starret City, Inc.
...A.D.3d 660, 661, 68 N.Y.S.3d 522 ; Rong Wen Wu v. Arniotes, 149 A.D.3d 786, 787, 50 N.Y.S.3d 563 ; Kravets v. New York City Hous. Auth., 134 A.D.3d 678, 20 N.Y.S.3d 587 ). "Reference to general 81 N.Y.S.3d 186cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in t......
-
Ansari v. MB Hamptons, LLC
...and remedy it" (Milorava v. Lord & Taylor Holdings, LLC, 133 A.D.3d 724, 725, 20 N.Y.S.3d 398 ; see Kravets v. New York City Hous. Auth., 134 A.D.3d 678, 679, 20 N.Y.S.3d 587 ; Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 119 A.D.3d 857, 857, 990 N.Y.S.2d 549 ). "To meet its burden on the issue o......
-
Meade v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell (see Kravets v. New York City Hous. Auth., 134 A.D.3d 678, 679, 20 N.Y.S.3d 587 ; Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ). Here, in support of its motion, ......