From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Argentina v. Southland Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1999
266 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted October 27, 1999

December 2, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Richard J. Inzerillo, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y. (Gary A. Pagliarello of counsel), for appellants.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis Fishlinger, Garden City, N.Y. (Rona L. Platt of counsel), for respondents.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action arises from an incident in the defendants' store in which the plaintiff Christine Argentina slipped and fell in a puddle of what appeared to be water. Following the commencement of the action, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the absence of notice of the allegedly hazardous condition.

On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on lack of notice, a defendant is required to make a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Dwoskin v. Burger King Corp., 249 A.D.2d 358 ;Gordon v. Waldbaum Inc., 231 A.D.2d 673 ). In opposition, in order "[t]o prove a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition" (Bradish v. Tank Tech Corp., 216 A.D.2d 505 ;Gaeta v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 509 ).

The deposition testimony submitted by the defendants established the absence of notice as a matter of law. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212[b]) as to whether the defendants either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Argentina v. Southland Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1999
266 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Argentina v. Southland Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTINE ARGENTINA, et al., appellants, v. SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 2, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Gooding v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Therefore, the defendants' submissions were sufficient to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment…