Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Janet PEFFERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 3, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on a stairway in defendant's hotel allegedly because the carpet on the stairway slipped, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2000, which deemed plaintiff's motion for “reconsideration, renewal and/or re-argument” as one for reargument, and, so considered, denied the motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
The deposition of defendant's employees who frequently used the stairway in question that they never noticed any loose carpeting on the stairs either before or after plaintiff fell, and the absence of any entries concerning the stairway carpeting in the logbook kept by defendant to record complaints and incidents, established prima facie that defendant lacked notice of the allegedly defective carpet. In opposition, plaintiff came forward not with any evidence of how long the defect existed, how visible and apparent it was, or other evidence of notice (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774), but with the affidavit of an engineer that carpeting installed without rods must have been attached to the stairs with some type of adhesive material which over time could have lost its holding strength, causing the carpet to move when people descend the stairs. However, such opinion is unavailing since a showing of defective installation would not permit a further inference that the looseness of the carpet actually existed and was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant to discover and remedy it (see, id.). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 23, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)