Summary
In Gale v BP/CG Ctr. I LLC (49 AD3d 454), there was a lack of notice where the plaintiff slipped in an area that had been mopped less than 15 minutes earlier and, unlike here, during that 15 minute period several people had walked through the area without incident in full view of building employees.
Summary of this case from Pomahac v. Trizechahn 1065 AvenueOpinion
Nos. 3162, 3162A.
March 25, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered June 26, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the BP/CG defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted in its entirety, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 3, 2007, which, upon granting reargument, adhered to the original decision, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.
Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP, New York (Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for appellants.
Block O'Toole, New York (Michael J. Wells of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
Plaintiff offered no evidence that defendant owners failed to take reasonable precautions to remedy wet conditions in the building at the time of the accident ( see Ford v Citibank, N.A., 11 AD3d 508, 509). After he stepped off the mats that had been provided, plaintiff slipped in an area that had been mopped less than 15 minutes earlier. During that 15-minute period, several people had walked through the area without incident, in full view of building employees. Therefore, plaintiff cannot show "that the allegedly dangerous wet condition was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants' employees to discover and remedy it" ( see Shernicoff v 1700 Broadway Co., 304 AD2d 409, 409-410). [ See 2007 NY Slip Op 31828(U).]