Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp.
Decision Date | 25 October 2005 |
Docket Number | 6509. |
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 07847,22 A.D.3d 406,803 N.Y.S.2d 51 |
Parties | HERBERT WEISS et al., Respondents, v. GERARD OWNERS CORP. et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on a wet floor as he entered defendant's building through a corridor leading from the service entrance to an interior door. Although it was raining at the time of the incident (8:30 A.M.), and allegedly had been raining, on and off, for some time before, the building's porter gave uncontroverted testimony that the floor of the corridor in question had been dry at about 7:30 A.M. Since the record provides no nonspeculative basis to determine whether, and for how long, the water was on the floor before plaintiff walked in, or, alternatively, whether plaintiff himself tracked in the moisture on which he slipped, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it (see O'Rourke v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, 260 AD2d 260, 261 [1999]). That it had been raining prior to the incident does not, without more, permit an inference of constructive notice (see Wallace v. Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 AD2d 255, 256 [2003], citing O'Rourke, 260 AD2d at 261). Further, defendants' alleged failure to place matting in the corridor provides no basis for imposing liability on them in the absence of evidence that they created or had actual or constructive notice of the water accumulation (see Tarrabocchia v 245 Park Ave. Co., 285 AD2d 388, 389 [2001], citing O'Rourke, 260 AD2d 260 [1999] and Crawford v. MRI Broadway Rental, 254 AD2d 68 [1998]). Finally, to the extent plaintiff's affidavit attempts to attribute the accident in part to inadequate lighting, such assertions contradict his deposition testimony that he could see the floor "if he wanted to" immediately before he slipped, and therefore are to be disregarded as merely feigning an issue of fact (see Phillips v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318, 320 [2000]). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manning v. City of N.Y.
...as to whether defendants had constructive notice of it (see O'Rourke v Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc., op.cit.,; Weiss v Gerard Owners Corp., 22 A.D.3d 406; 803 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2005J). Even as afforded all favorable inferences, and in light of the meteorological records, plaintiff's......
-
Vici Vidi Vini, Inc. v. Buchanan Ingersoll, PC, 2008 NY Slip Op 32226(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/29/2008)
...the extent it contradicts prior deposition testimony in assessing these motions to dismiss, citing, for example, Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp. (22 A.D.3d 406 [1st Dept. 2005]). However, Weiss and its progeny were decided on summary judgment, in which context the court searches the record for......
-
Brown v. Addison Hall Owners Corp.
...sufficient time to constitute constructive notice. However, the cases cited by defendants for distinguishable. In Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp., 803 N.Y.S.2d 51 (1st Dept. 2005), plaintiff fell inside defendant's building. It had been raining at the time of the accident, at 8:30 a.m. and had......
-
Heavey v. Starbucks Coffee Company, 2008 NY Slip Op 31785(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/20/2008)
...or had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition resulting from the absence of such a matting. Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp., 22 A.D.3d 406 (1st Dep't 2005) (holding that the defendants' failure to place matting provides no basis for liability in the absence of evidence that t......