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.
Utika CHEMONT, Respondent, v. PATHMARK SUPERMARKETS, INC., Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 22, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on a puddle of rain water on the floor of the vestibule of the defendant's store. There was a severe and sudden thunderstorm in progress at the time that the plaintiff entered the store.
The defendant met its initial burden of showing, as a matter of law, that it did not create the dangerous condition which caused the accident, and did not have actual notice thereof (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774; Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740). Moreover, to constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, supra; Alatief v. New York City Tr. Auth., 256 A.D.2d 371, 681 N.Y.S.2d 562). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the rain water had accumulated on the floor of the vestibule for a sufficient length of time before the plaintiff's fall so as to permit the defendant to discover and remedy the condition (see, Seneglia v. FPL Foods, 273 A.D.2d 221, 709 N.Y.S.2d 842; Smith v. May Dept. Store Co., 270 A.D.2d 870, 705 N.Y.S.2d 153; Maguire v. Southland Corp., 245 A.D.2d 347, 665 N.Y.S.2d 680).
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence that this was a recurrent dangerous condition, or that the defendant had actual knowledge of this allegedly recurrent dangerous condition (see, Carlos v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 515, 692 N.Y.S.2d 428; Dwoskin v. Burger King Corp., 249 A.D.2d 358, 671 N.Y.S.2d 494; Young v. Fleary, 226 A.D.2d 454, 640 N.Y.S.2d 593).
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 22, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)