The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a thin sheet of ice in a plaza in front of defendant’s building. Defendant demonstrated that the area had been inspected an hour before the accident and no ice was visible. Plaintiff acknowledged she could not see the ice. Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant created the dangerous condition by running a fountain which was the source of a wind-borne spray of water on the plaza was deemed too speculative:
The evidence submitted by defendant, including security logs, establishes that defendant’s employees routinely inspected the area where plaintiff fell, had conducted an inspection one hour prior to her accident, and did not observe any ice. In opposition and in support of her cross motion, plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing that the ice was discernable.
On appeal, plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s lack of actual notice of ice on the plaza, having conceded, at her examination before trial, that it was not visible. She testified that although conditions at about 9:30 a.m. were bright and clear, it “looked like a thin layer of ice that wasn’t noticeable enough for me to see it before I fell.” Thus, the record establishes that the hazardous condition was not “visible and apparent” so as to enable defendant’s employees to discover it and take remedial measures… . Tompa v 767 Fifth Partners LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00276, 1st Dept 1-16-14