Ortiz v. Ciolfar Bowl, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered August 3, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Flaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell in defendants’ bowling alley as she started to throw the ball, because her bowling shoes became wet after she twice walked over a soaking wet carpet near the establishment’s entrance. Defendants submitted evidence showing that plaintiff left the bowling alley wearing her bowling shoes, while it was raining outside, and then returned a short time later to resume bowling.
Furthermore, while defendants presented evidence that they had no actual or constructive notice that the carpet was wet since it was observed to be dry shortly before and after the accident, plaintiff’s conflicting testimony concerning the wet condition of the carpet presents a question of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the wet carpet (see Fundaro v City of New York, 272 AD2d 516 [2d Dept 2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.