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.
Katherine ROETHGEN, respondent, v. AMF BABYLON LANES, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated July 5, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a summary judgment motion, the defendant in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Marino v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 21 A.D.3d 531, 800 N.Y.S.2d 591; Britto v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 21 A.D.3d 436, 799 N.Y.S.2d 828; Joachim v. 1824 Church Ave., 12 A.D.3d 409, 784 N.Y.S.2d 157). “Only after the moving defendant has satisfied this threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition” (Joachim v. 1824 Church Ave., supra at 410, 784 N.Y.S.2d 157).
Here, the defendants, the owners and operators of a bowling alley, presented sufficient evidence to sustain their initial burden (see Overton v. Leisure Time Recreation, 280 A.D.2d 655, 721 N.Y.S.2d 95). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' employees caused the approach area to be slippery by negligently operating an oiling machine used to oil the lanes (see Kappes v. Cohoes Bowling Arena, 2 A.D.3d 1034, 768 N.Y.S.2d 251; Overton v. Leisure Time Recreation, supra). Moreover, the plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had notice of the slippery condition in the approach area (cf. Rocco v. St. Matthew's R.C. Church, 265 A.D.2d 472, 696 N.Y.S.2d 703). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit (see Kappes v. Cohoes Bowling Arena, supra).
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 06, 2006
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)