Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 09 June 2016
• Citation: 140 A.D.3d 1376,33 N.Y.S.3d 563,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04493
• Parties: Jacqueline WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

140 A.D.3d 1376

33 N.Y.S.3d 563

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04493

Jacqueline WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.STATE of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 9, 2016.

Basch & Keegan, LLP, Kingston (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, EGAN JR., DEVINE and AARONS, JJ.

DEVINE, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered November 12, 2014, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial in favor of defendant on the issue of liability.

Claimant worked at Coxsackie Correctional Facility as a certified nurse's aide and, shortly after she arrived at the facility for her shift on December 12, 2010, she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot. She commenced this negligence action to recover for the injuries sustained in the fall. The Court of Claims conducted a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, after which it found for defendant and dismissed the claim. Claimant now appeals.

Inasmuch as this is “an appeal from a judgment issued after a nonjury trial, we are able to ‘independently review the weight of the evidence ... and, while according appropriate deference to the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings, grant the judgment warranted by the record’ ” (Weinberger v. New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth.,

133 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 19 N.Y.S.3d 625 [2015], quoting Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Davidson, 116 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 983 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 905, 2014 WL 4637016 [2014] ; see

Medina v. State of New York, 133 A.D.3d 943, 944, 18 N.Y.S.3d 799 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 905, 2016 WL 2355002 [2016] ). Our independent review persuades us that the claim was properly dismissed and, accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant is obliged to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances (see Powers v. 31 E 31 LLC, 24 N.Y.3d 84, 94, 996 N.Y.S.2d 210, 20 N.E.3d 990 [2014] ; Rossal–Daub v. Walter, 97 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 948 N.Y.S.2d 765 [2012] ). Under the circumstances here, “[l]iability for a slip and fall may not be imposed upon [defendant] unless there is evidence that [it] knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that icy conditions existed, yet failed to correct the situation within a reasonable time” (Uhlinger v. Gloversville Enlarged School Dist., 19 A.D.3d 780, 780–781, 796 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2005] ; see Richer v. State of New York, 31 A.D.3d 943, 944, 819 N.Y.S.2d 173 [2006] ; Smith v. State of New York, 260 A.D.2d 819, 820, 688 N.Y.S.2d 774 [1999] ).

It had been raining and the temperature was hovering around freezing in the hours before claimant's fall, although claimant testified that there was no precipitation during her drive to work. The overnight watch commander learned of the icy conditions caused by the rain and promptly summoned maintenance staff around 5:30 a.m. to address the situation. The maintenance workers salted and sanded that portion of the parking lot where claimant parked on their first pass and, given the amount of time a pass took, it was essentially certain that the area had been treated prior to her 6:40 a.m. arrival. The workers' supervisor further testified that the rotary spinner used to distribute the mixture worked with sufficient force to spread salt and sand over both the travel lanes and parking spots in the lot. Claimant denied that the parking lot had been salted and stated that it was covered in ice when she fell, but...