Medina v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Decision Date | 26 June 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-03485.,2005-11462. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 05703,839 N.Y.S.2d 162,41 A.D.3d 798 |
Parties | DAISY MEDINA, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an uncovered ramp which connected the rooftop parking lot to a merchandise pickup area of the defendant's building. The ramp was wet from rain which had started about 10 minutes before the accident. The essence of the plaintiff's complaint, as set out in her original bill of particulars, was that the defendant was negligent in allowing the ramp to become wet due to the rain.
In order to impose liability upon a defendant in a slip-and-fall case, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous condition and that the defendant either created the defect or had actual or constructive notice of it. The mere fact that the ramp became wet from the rain was insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous condition (see Richardson v Campanelli, 297 AD2d 794 [2002]; Sadowsky v 2175 Wantagh Ave. Corp., 281 AD2d 407 [2001]; King v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 354 [1999]; Patrick v Cho's Fruit & Vegetables, 248 AD2d 692 [1998]; see also Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Gentles v New York City Tr. Auth., 275 AD2d 388 [2000]).
The plaintiff's new theory of negligence, that the defendant created a defective condition in that the ramp was excessively sloped and lacked handrails in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-377, was alleged for the first time in opposition to the defendant's motion. "While modern practice permits a plaintiff to successfully oppose a motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mackauer v. Parikh
...A.D.3d 677, 678, 877 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; Gallello v. MARJ Distribs., Inc., 50 A.D.3d 734, 736, 855 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 799–800, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162 ; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Allied–Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 523, 524, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220......
-
Scheffield v. Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC
...was slippery in rainy weather, without more, does not establish the existence of a dangerous condition (see Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 799, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162 [2007] ; Todt v. Schroon Riv. Campsite, 281 A.D.2d 782, 783, 722 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2001] ). As for its steepness, phot......
- Fucci v. Plotke
-
Kudrina v. 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp.
...63 A.D.3d 870, 882 N.Y.S.2d 194;Starling v. Suffolk County Water Auth., 63 A.D.3d 822, 881 N.Y.S.2d 149;Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162). A plaintiff's inability to identify what had caused him or her to fall is fatal to his or her case, and a defendant movin......