Opinion
2014-06-4
Josephine SARANDREA, respondent, v. ST. CHARLES SCHOOL, et al., appellants.
Connors & Connors, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (David S. Heller of counsel), for appellants. Ameduri, Galante & Friscia, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marvin Ben–Aron of counsel), for respondent.
Connors & Connors, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (David S. Heller of counsel), for appellants. Ameduri, Galante & Friscia, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marvin Ben–Aron of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated March 5, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition of accumulated water on the floor upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell, or have actual or constructive notice of the condition ( see Orlov v. BFP 245 Park Co., LLC, 84 A.D.3d 764, 922 N.Y.S.2d 479;Babb v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 976, 911 N.Y.S.2d 640;Perlongo v. Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 409, 818 N.Y.S.2d 158;Murphy v. Lawrence Towers Apts., LLC, 15 A.D.3d 371, 789 N.Y.S.2d 532). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants were not required to cover all of the floor with mats or continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain ( see Naulo v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 71 A.D.3d 651, 896 N.Y.S.2d 155;Negron v. St. Patrick's Nursing Home, 248 A.D.2d 687, 671 N.Y.S.2d 275). Moreover, “[a] general awareness that water might be tracked into a building when it rains is insufficient to impute to the defendants constructive notice of the particular dangerous condition” ( Musante v. Department of Educ. of City of NY, 97 A.D.3d 731, 731, 949 N.Y.S.2d 104;Yearwood v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 568, 742 N.Y.S.2d 661).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.