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.
Maria HAYDEN, appellant, v. WALDBAUM, INC., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated December 9, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell when her foot became caught under the edge of a rubber mat which was located in a vestibule of the defendant's store. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that a portion of the mat had “bubbled up,” though she did not trip on the “bubbled up” portion of the mat.
To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it (see Denker v. Century 21 Dept. Stores, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 527, 866 N.Y.S.2d 681). A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident that it could have been discovered and corrected (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).
Here, the defendant sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting deposition testimony of the store's manager that he inspected the vestibule area 50 to 60 times each day and that porters swept the vestibule area three or four times each day (cf. Arzola v. Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership, --- A.D.3d ----, 880 N.Y.S.2d 352 [decided herewith] ). The store manager further testified that he never received any complaints that the mat would lift or “bubble up” and that “graft” under the bottom of the mat affixed it to the tile floor below. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created a dangerous condition with regard to the mat or had actual or constructive notice of such condition (see Denker v. Century 21 Dept. Stores, LLC, 55 A.D.3d 527, 866 N.Y.S.2d 681). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
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: June 02, 2009
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)