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.
Martha WHITE, appellant, v. L & M CORPORATE, INC., d/b/a Roma Deli, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated December 14, 2004, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that it had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Beltran v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 456, 686 N.Y.S.2d 79). A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon lack of notice is required to make a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see Beltran v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra; Fox v. Kamal Corp., 271 A.D.2d 485, 706 N.Y.S.2d 142).
Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant established, prima facie, that it neither created nor had notice of the spilled liquid upon which the plaintiff allegedly fell. However, in opposition, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant did in fact cause a large spill of an oily substance extending many feet both inside and outside the rear entrance door, identified by the witness who came to the plaintiff's aid moments after her fall. Accordingly, the defendant's motion should have been denied.
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: December 19, 2005
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)