Corwise v Lefrak Org.

[*1] Corwise v Lefrak Org. 2015 NY Slip Op 51087(U) Decided on July 14, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 14, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2014-533 Q C

Thelma Corwise, Respondent, The

against

Lefrak Organization, MID STATE MANAGEMENT CORP. and CEYLON LEASING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered October 25, 2013. The order denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for personal injuries plaintiff suffered in a slip-and-fall accident as the result of a wet condition on the floor of the basement of the building in which she was a resident, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that they neither had created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition. By order entered October 25, 2013, the Civil Court denied defendants' motion.

It is well settled that:

"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. To provide constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it. To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell" (Gadzhiyeva v Smith, 116 AD3d 1001, 1001 [2014] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).
In support of their motion, defendants failed to submit evidence establishing when the area in question had actually been last cleaned or inspected prior to plaintiff's accident, thereby failing to meet their burden of establishing, prima facie, their lack of constructive notice (see e.g. [*2]Arcabascio v We're Assoc., Inc., 125 AD3d 904, 904-905 [2015] ["Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice"]). Therefore, the Civil Court properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 14, 2015