Summary
In Richardson, a worker brought an action to recover damages for injuries she sustained during a slip and fall on water in the lobby of a building where she worked during an ongoing storm.
Summary of this case from O'Sullivan v. 7-Eleven, Inc.Opinion
2013-01-22
Lorene RICHARDSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. S.I.K. ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Michael Gunzburg, New York, for appellant. Thomas D. Hughes, New York (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for respondents.
Michael Gunzburg, New York, for appellant. Thomas D. Hughes, New York (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for respondents.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, ROMÁN, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti–Hughes, J.), entered November 28, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a strip of water in the service lobby, near the back exit of the building where she worked, during an ongoing snowstorm. Defendants demonstrated that the snowstorm started prior to, and continued during plaintiff's accident. Thus, defendants were not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy when an alleged slippery condition is said to be caused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm ( see Hussein v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 146, 699 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.1999];Kovelsky v. City Univ. of N.Y., 221 A.D.2d 234, 634 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.1995] ).
Defendants demonstrated that they had no notice of the alleged water accumulation in the service lobby, as this accumulation could have been tracked in by pedestrian traffic, or deliveries made through this service entrance ( see Thomas v. Boston Props., 76 A.D.3d 460, 906 N.Y.S.2d 265 [1st Dept.2010] ). Nor did defendants have constructive notice due to any ongoing and recurring condition which was routinely left unaddressed by the landlord, since plaintiff saw no water prior to her fall ( see Rodriguez v. 520 Audubon Assoc., 71 A.D.3d 417, 895 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1st Dept.2010] ). Moreover, neither the eyewitness nor the superintendent testified that there was any ice coming into the service area ( see Roman v. Met–Paca II Assoc., L.P., 85 A.D.3d 509, 925 N.Y.S.2d 447 [1st Dept.2011] ).