Opinion
8144 Index 304739/14
03-26-2019
Reyna DIAZ–MARTINEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. KING OF GLORY TABERNACLE, Defendant–Respondent.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for appellant. Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Salvatore J. DeSantis of counsel), for respondent.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for appellant.
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Salvatore J. DeSantis of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered on or about June 21, 2017, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant, in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while picking up her son from defendant's after-school program, she allegedly slipped and fell on water at the bottom of a staircase. Defendant submitted evidence showing that it did not have notice of the condition, as two of its employees testified that no water or liquids were present on the stairs or in the vicinity at the time of or before plaintiff's fall (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History , 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 [1986] ; see also Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency , 4 A.D.3d 204, 771 N.Y.S.2d 646 [1st Dept. 2004] ). There is no dispute that it had been raining earlier in the day, and that defendant had placed wet floor warning signs at the top and the bottom of the stairs and a mat on the top floor in front of the main entrance. There is also no dispute that the mat and warning signs "were put out as a safety precaution and not in response to complaints regarding the condition of the floor where plaintiff fell" ( Snauffer v. 1177 Ave. of the Ams. LP , 78 A.D.3d 583, 583, 913 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2010] ). The defendant's "general awareness that the floor might become wet after inclement weather d[oes] not permit an inference of constructive notice" ( Asante v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 93 A.D.3d 429, 429, 940 N.Y.S.2d 44 [1st Dept. 2012]lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 813, 954 N.Y.S.2d 8, 978 N.E.2d 601 [2012], cert denied 571 U.S. 942, 134 S.Ct. 137, 187 L.Ed.2d 258 [2013] ; see also Rodriguez v. 520 Audubon Assoc. , 71 A.D.3d 417, 895 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1st Dept. 2010] ).
In opposition, plaintiff did not refute defendant's showing or otherwise raise a triable issue of fact (see Philips v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp. , 268 A.D.2d 318, 319–320, 701 N.Y.S.2d 403 [1st Dept. 2000] ).