CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Education (DOE) did not demonstrate a lack of constructive knowledge of the condition of a cart used by plaintiff teacher to move materials out of a classroom. The cart stopped suddenly and the plaintiff’s foot was injured. There was conflicting evidence about whether plaintiff and others had made the DOE aware of the defective condition of the cart:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the DOE did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the cart that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that in September 2015, approximately five months before she was injured, she complained about the condition of the cart to the school principal. The plaintiff further testified that in January 2016, approximately one month before the accident, her supervisor, an assistant principal at the school, observed the plaintiff “struggling” to use the cart, which “wasn’t working properly.” According to the plaintiff, her supervisor advised that she would speak with the principal about the issue. The DOE also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s supervisor, who testified that prior to the accident, she did not recall the plaintiff making any complaints specifically about the condition of the cart. This conflicting testimony raised triable issues of fact as to credibility and whether the DOE had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the cart … . Rossi v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04607, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff, a teacher, alleged she was injured when a cart used to move materials stopped suddenly. There was conflicting evidence whether defendant had been made aware of the defective condition of the cart. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.