From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baumgartner v. Prudential Ins. Co., America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1998
251 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 8, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).


Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Team Construction Co., Inc., is dismissed for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this "Court ( see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [a], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendants Prudential Insurance Company of America and General Growth Management, Inc., on the law, with costs, their motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against those defendants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell at approximately 6:00 P.M. on January 13, 1994, on a patch of ice in the parking lot of the shopping mall where he worked. The defendant Team Construction Co., Inc., had put down rock salt in the parking lot in the morning, finishing at 10:00 A.M. The plaintiff had arrived at the mall at approximately 9:30 A.M., and, at approximately 12:00 P.M., informed a mall guard of icy conditions in the parking lot. The appellants submitted climatological reports from two nearby airports which indicated that at 10:00 A.M. on the day of the incident the temperature was above freezing, and rose during the course of the day to reach a high of 37 degrees at 4:00 P.M., after which it began to drop until approximately 7:00 P.M., when it reached a low of 30 degrees.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and a reasonable time within which to correct it or warn of its existence ( see, Maguire v. Southland Corp., 245 A.D.2d 347; Bykofsky v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, 210 A.D.2d 280). A general awareness that a dangerous condition might exist is legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition which caused the injury ( see, Maguire v. Southland Corp., supra; Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969).

The plaintiff's comments to a mall guard concerning a general icy condition in the parking lot, made around noon, cannot as a matter of law constitute adequate notice of the specific dangerous condition which caused his injury, especially given that, after the plaintiff entered the mall, the lot had been salted and the temperatures rose above freezing. As the temperature fell below freezing only after 4:00 P.M., and continued to drop until 7:00 P.M., it cannot be said that the appellants had constructive notice or a reasonable time in which to remedy the condition ( see, Arcuri v. Vitolo, 196 A.D.2d 519).

Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baumgartner v. Prudential Ins. Co., America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 1998
251 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Baumgartner v. Prudential Ins. Co., America

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH BAUMGARTNER, Respondent, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 8, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 84

Citing Cases

Zeleny v. Suffolk Cnty. Police Dep't

To constitute constructive notice, a condition must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a…

Voss v. D C Parking

This evidence is insufficient to defeat the defendant's prima facie case. The defendant's general awareness…