Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Rouse v. Lex Real Associates

Rouse v. Lex Real Associates
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 24, 2005
16 A.D.3d 273; 792 N.Y.S.2d 38; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3134
Rouse v. Lex Real Associates

Opinion of the Court

*274Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered December 30, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was no evidence that defendants created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of a hazard that could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care (see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204 [2004]). The fact that rainwater was being tracked into the lobby does not constitute notice of a dangerous condition (id.). Having received no complaints of a wet spot near the floor mat, defendants had no actual notice of the condition, and absent proof that the wet spot was sufficiently visible and had been there long enough to permit discovery and remedy before the accident, it cannot be inferred that they had constructive notice (id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.