Roy v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- San Antonio v. 340 Ridge Tenants Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Sodhi v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Wood v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Ansari v. MB Hamptons, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Fernandez v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Feola v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Feola v. City of New York (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)
- Osbourne v. 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Lopez v. New York Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Walker v. Glotzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Hoffman v. United Methodist Church (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Sherry v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July, 14, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York as a local instructional su
“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip- and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Bruk v Razag, Inc., 60 AD3d 715 [2009], quoting Sloane v Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522, 523 [2008]; see Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436, 437 [1998]).
The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, since they failed to submit any evidence regarding any particularized or specific inspection or cleaning procedure that they utilized in the area of the plaintiffs fall on the date of the accident (see Bruk v Razag, Inc., 60 AD3d 715 [2009]; Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598-599 [2008]; Van Dina v St. Francis Hosp., Roslyn, N.Y., 45 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436, 437 [2005]).
Additionally, the evidence submitted by the defendants indicated that the puddles of water existed for almost two hours before the accident, thus demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding whether this condition existed for a sufficient length of time for the defendants to discover and remedy it (see Villaurel v City of New York, 59 AD3d 709 [2009]; Backer v Central Parking Sys., 292 AD2d 408 [2002]; Huth v Allied Maintenance Corp., 143 AD2d 634, 636 [1988]).
Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.