You are here: / / A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY...

A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff testified he used the dryer in the laundry room and noticed no water on the floor. He returned to the laundry room a half hour or more later. The room was empty at that time, as it had been when he put his clothes in the dryer. After taking his clothes from dryer he slipped on water near the dryer. He did not notice the water until after he fell. The defendant submitted plaintiff’s testimony in support of the summary judgment motion. The fact that water on the floor could be a recurring condition in the laundry room was not enough to defeat the evidence of a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

​

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… . 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” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, including the decedent’s deposition testimony, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A general awareness that the laundry room floor could become wet was legally insufficient to constitute constructive notice of the particular condition that allegedly caused the decedent to slip and fall … . Adamson v Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05057, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

NEGLIGENCE (A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, WATER ON FLOOR OF LAUNDRY ROOM, A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
THE LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND THE EXCUSE OFFERED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL’S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Providing a False Name During Booking Did Not Trigger the Need for a Miranda Warning
Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably Estopped from Seeking Paternity Determination
UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REPORT WAS BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROTECTIVE ORDER DELAYING DISCOVERY UNTIL 45 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY... ATTORNEY’S FEES IN EXCESS OF WHAT COURT AWARDED NOT AVAILABLE, NOT ENTITLED...