Rosado v Phipps Houses Servs., Inc.

Annotate this Case
Rosado v Phipps Houses Servs., Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 02385 Decided on March 29, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 29, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7207 305487/08

[*1]Jessica Rosado, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Phipps Houses Services, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Kral Clerkin Redmond Ryan Perry & Van Etten, LLP, New
York (James V. Derenze of counsel), for appellants.
Kresman & Weiner, LLP, New York (David J. Kresman of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered May 10, 2011, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell in a puddle located on an exterior landing of premises owned, managed and/or operated by defendants, and that two yellow caution cones had been placed against the wall, to her right and left, as she exited, but not in the area of the liquid condition. The presence of caution cones here created a triable issue of fact as to prior actual notice of the condition, as defendants' witness admitted that they would place such caution cones to alert others to a slippery condition and plaintiff denied that the cones were being used to prop open a door, as had been alleged by defendants' witness (see Felix v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 64 AD3d 499 [2009]; Hilsman v Sarwil Assoc., L.P., 13 AD3d 692 [2004]). Additionally, while the hearsay portions of a witness affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, which referred to an unidentified person or persons having admitted prior notice of the condition, were inadmissible (see Cassanova v General Cinema Corp. of N.Y., 237 AD2d 155 [1997]; Pascarella v Sears, Roebuck and Co., 280 AD2d 279 [2001]), the witness's first hand account of providing defendants with notice of the condition at least 45 minutes before the accident raised triable issues of fact as to prior actual and constructive notice of the condition.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 29, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.