ADINGRA v. HENRY STREET SETTLEMENT (2006)

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

Ruth ADINGRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRY STREET SETTLEMENT, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: February 23, 2006

ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, FRIEDMAN, WILLIAMS, MALONE, JJ.

Leonard Silverman, New York, for appellant. Russo, Keane & Toner, LLP, New York (Christopher G. Keane of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 7, 2005, which, upon renewal of an earlier order of the same court and Justice, entered May 25, 2004, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly reconsidered on the basis of newly submitted evidence (Kasem v. Price-Rite Off. & Home Furniture, 21 A.D.3d 799, 801, 800 N.Y.S.2d 713 [2005] ). The new submissions made it clear that no inference could be drawn that the puddle of water on which plaintiff slipped was either created by defendant or had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant to discover and remedy it. There were no prior complaints about water on the floor, and the maintenance logs did not reveal any problems with the bathroom. (See Stefan v. Monkey Bar, 273 A.D.2d 133, 709 N.Y.S.2d 556 [2000].)

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network