Roy v. City of New York, 2008-07903.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-07903. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 06419,65 A.D.3d 1030,885 N.Y.S.2d 108 |
| Parties | MARLENE ROY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York as a local instructional superintendent allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of water while she was exiting the lobby of P.S. 12k (hereinafter the school) in Brooklyn at 10:45 A.M. The plaintiff alleged that between 8:30 A.M. and 8:45 A.M. she observed several puddles of water between two mats in the lobby, and that this was the same water she fell on as she was leaving the building, even though she was not sure if the size of the puddles changed. After the plaintiff commenced this action, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.
"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" (Bruk v Razag, Inc., 60 AD3d 715 [2009], quoting Sloane v Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522, 523 [2008]; see Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436, 437 [1998]).
The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, since they failed to submit any evidence regarding any particularized or specific inspection or cleaning procedure that they utilized in the area of the plaintiff's fall on the date of the accident (see Bruk v Razag, Inc., 60 AD3d 715 [2009]; Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598-599 [2008]; Van Dina v St. Francis Hosp., Roslyn, N.Y., 45 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436, 437 [2005]).
Additionally, the evidence submitted by the defendants indicated that the puddles of water existed for almost two hours before the accident, thus demonstrating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Antonio v. 340 Ridge Tenants Corp.
...that the landing had a "coating" of moisture at approximately 7:00 a.m. on the morning of the accident (see Roy v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 885 N.Y.S.2d 108 ). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the evidence they relied upon in support of their motion, which included a t......
-
Hoffman v. United Methodist Church
...or had actual or constructive notice of it ( see Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477; Roy v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1030, 885 N.Y.S.2d 108). However, where, as here, "an object capable of deteriorating is concealed from view, a property owner's duty of reasonabl......
-
Feola v. City of N.Y.
...York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d at 598, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222;Schiano v. Mijul, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 726, 912 N.Y.S.2d 134;Roy v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1030, 885 N.Y.S.2d 108;cf. Rios v. New York City Hous. Auth., 48 A.D.3d 661, 852 N.Y.S.2d 283). Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in granti......
-
Sodhi v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 448
...icy condition existed for a sufficient length of time for the defendants to discover and remedy it (see Roy v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 885 N.Y.S.2d 108 [2d Dept. 2009] ). We reject the further contention of Portage and Baldwin in appeal No. 1 that they were not responsible f......