Opinion
09-14-2017
Dolores PARIETTI et al., Appellants, v. WAL–MART STORES, INC. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Blackstone Law Group, LLP, New York City (Justin B. Perri, Alexander J. Urbelis and John D. Lovi of counsel), for appellants. Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, Esqs., Northport (Patricia A. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.
Blackstone Law Group, LLP, New York City (Justin B. Perri, Alexander J. Urbelis and John D. Lovi of counsel), for appellants.
Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, Esqs., Northport (Patricia A. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs, and the motion of Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal–Mart Stores East, L.P. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, insofar as asserted against them, denied. In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (see Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 A.D.2d 246, 249, 472 N.Y.S.2d 368 [1984], aff'd for reason stated below 64 N.Y.2d 670, 485 N.Y.S.2d 252, 474 N.E.2d 612 [1984] ). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal–Mart Stores East, L.P. had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence.Chief Judge DiFIORE and Judges RIVERA, STEIN, FAHEY, GARCIA, WILSON and FEINMAN concur.