Summary
In SookJa Lee v Yi Mei Bakery Corp., 305 AD2d 579 (2d Dept 2003), the defendant bakery established that it took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet condition in its premises caused by a lengthy rainstorm by placing a rubberized mat on the street side of the front door and another one about one foot inside the front door, and by showing that its employees mopped the floor four times during the morning of the accident prior to the plaintiff's fall.
Summary of this case from Braswell v. Union Square Hosp. Grp.Opinion
2002-04622
Argued April 28, 2003.
May 19, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 15, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Sackstein, Sackstein, Sackstein Lee, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Ellen Sackstein of counsel), for appellants.
Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York, N.Y. (Sean O. Edwards of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Sook Ja Lee when she slipped and fell due to an alleged accumulation of water on the floor of the defendant's bakery. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that it took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet condition on its premises caused by a lengthy rainstorm (see Miller v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 262 N.Y. 107). In this regard, the defendant averred that a rubberized mat was placed on the street side of the front door and another one about one foot inside the front door, and the defendant's employees were instructed to mop the floor, as necessary, which they did approximately four times during the morning of the accident prior to the injured plaintiff's fall (see Negron v. St. Patrick's Nursing Home, 248 A.D.2d 687; Kovelsky v. City Univ. of N.Y., 221 A.D.2d 234, 235).
In opposition, the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Assing v. United Rubber Supply Co., 126 A.D.2d 590).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.
ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.