Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Murphy v. Lawrence Towers Apartments, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2005

15 A.D.3d 371; 789 N.Y.S.2d 532; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1360

Cases that cite this one

23 later published cases cite this decision.

Ruck v. Levittown Norse Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Price v. BFP Tower C Co., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Elbert v. Leasing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Koziar v. Grand Palace Restaurant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Paduano v. 686 Forest Avenue, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Aguila v. Fox Hills Partners, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Sarandrea v. St. Charles School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Sarandrea v. St. Charles School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Osbourne v. 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Osbourne v. 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Chang v. Adams Fairacre Farms, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Razla v. Surgical Sock Shop II, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Zerilli v. Western Beef Retail, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Babb v. Marshalls of MA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Mentasi v. Eckerd Drugs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Taylor v. Jaslove (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Ruic v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Gullo-Georgio v. Dunkin' Donuts Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Miguel v. SJS Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Kormusis v. Jeffrey Gardens Apartment Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Hackbarth v. McDonalds Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Hitzler v. St. Teresa's Church (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Curtis v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated May 14, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

“[T]o impose liability for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by [water being] tracked into a building [in rainy weather], a defendant must either have created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition, and a reasonable time to undertake remedial actions” (Friedman v Gannett Satellite Info. Network, 302 AD2d 491 [2003]; see Yearwood v Cushman & Wakefield, 294 AD2d 568 [2002]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering admissible evidence demonstrating that it took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet condition on its premises caused by the rain (see Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107 [1933]; Ford v Citibank, N.A., 11 AD3d 508 [2004]). There was no evidence that the defendant created the wet condition, and it “was not obligated to provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into a building in rainy weather” (Yearwood v Cushman & Wakefield, supra at 568; see Ford v Citibank, N.A., *372supra at 508). Further, the defendant demonstrated that it had no actual notice of the particular accumulation of water that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Since there was no evidence that the condition complained of was present for a sufficient period of time for the defendant to have discovered and remedied it, there was no basis for an inference that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition (see Yearwood v Cushman & Wakefield, supra at 569; see also Ford v Citibank, N.A., supra at 509; Spooner v New York City Tr. Auth., 298 AD2d 575, 575-576 [2002]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (see Ford v Citibank, N.A., supra at 509; Yearwood v Cushman & Wakefield, supra at 568; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590 [1996]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Krausman, J.E, Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.