Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
New York Court of Appeals, 1996

Mercer v. City of New York

Mercer v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 9, 1996 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur
670 N.E.2d 443; 88 N.Y.2d 955; 647 N.Y.S.2d 159; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 1528 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Mercer v. City of New York

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The evidence presented at trial, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fails to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Nothing in the record suggests that defendant either affirmatively created the particular pool of grease or oil alleged to have caused plaintiffs fall, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249, affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 670). Thus, the Appellate Division properly reversed the judgment in plaintiffs’ favor and dismissed the complaint.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

↑