LYNCH v. MIDDLE COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (2001)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 20, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.   The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on water in the hallway of the defendant's school.   Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the record is devoid of any evidence that the defendant either had actual notice of the wet condition in the hallway or that the wet condition was visible, apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time to constitute constructive notice (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774;  Madrid v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 399 N.Y.S.2d 205, 369 N.E.2d 761;  Marte v. New York City Tr. Auth., 276 A.D.2d 755, 715 N.Y.S.2d 704;  Cellini v. Waldbaum, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 345, 691 N.Y.S.2d 569).

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of a recurring hazard such that it should be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of the condition (see, Dember v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 272 A.D.2d 431, 708 N.Y.S.2d 330;  McDuffie v. Fleet Fin. Group, 269 A.D.2d 575, 703 N.Y.S.2d 510;  Carlos v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 515, 692 N.Y.S.2d 428).

 Finally, the plaintiff's contention that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to follow its own policy of putting down mats in hazardous weather is insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Greenwald v. Gerritsen Foodtown Corp., 260 A.D.2d 349, 686 N.Y.S.2d 323).