You are here: / / Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition...

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition Where Plaintiff Fell

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The defendant demonstrated it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition (wet floor). An affidavit by a member of the maintenance crew stated that the area where plaintiff fell had been inspected 10 to 15 minutes before the fall and there had been no complaints about a wet condition. The court explained the relevant law:

The owner or possessor of property has a duty to maintain his or her property “in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … .

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition alleged by the plaintiff to have caused the accident. In support of its motion, the defendant relied upon, among other things, the affidavit of Charles Barber, a member of the maintenance crew at the subject store on the date of the accident. Barber averred that he had inspected the area where the plaintiff alleged that she fell approximately 10 to 15 minutes prior to the accident and observed no water in the area at that time. He further averred in his affidavit that at no point prior to the accident did he ever receive any complaints of any kind concerning the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell. Mehta v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05450, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATING TO THE COURT THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS FRIVOLOUS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.
School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After Arrival at the School—Child Had Not Yet Entered the Orbit of the School’s Authority—Although School Voluntarily Undertook the Duty to Determine the Whereabouts of Absent Students, the Parents Were Not Aware of that Policy and Therefore Could Not Have Relied On It
Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case
DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus Dry... Purchasers Entitled to Return of Downpayment Under Terms of the Purchase Contract...