GORLEY v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.), dated May 14, 2020.  The order granted the motion of the defendant County of Westchester for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on liquid on the floor of the Westchester County Jail. The defendant County of Westchester moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it.  In an order dated May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the County's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” (Adamson v. Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 151 A.D.3d 913, 914, 58 N.Y.S.3d 100;  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).  “To provide constructive notice, ‘a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it’ ” (Adamson v. Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 151 A.D.3d at 914, 58 N.Y.S.3d 100, quoting Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d at 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).  Here, the County established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d at 837–838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774;  Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718;  Hagan v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d 590, 591, 87 N.Y.S.3d 325;  Adamson v. Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 151 A.D.3d at 915, 58 N.Y.S.3d 100).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the County's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.