Summary
denying summary judgment because twenty minutes was sufficient for the jury to infer constructive notice
Summary of this case from Lyman v. Petsmart, Inc.Opinion
April 8, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.).
In light of the evidence showing the absence of defendant's custodial aide, whose duty was to clean up any food or drink that fell to the floor, and which indicated that salad had been on the floor of defendants' lunchroom for 20 minutes before plaintiff slipped on it, falling and injuring herself, there was a rational basis for the jury to infer (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499) that the complained of hazard had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants' personnel to discover it and take remedial measures (see, Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625; Kelsey v. Port Auth., 52 A.D.2d 801).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.