From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keller v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1999
260 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

denying summary judgment because twenty minutes was sufficient for the jury to infer constructive notice

Summary of this case from Lyman v. Petsmart, Inc.

Opinion

April 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.).


In light of the evidence showing the absence of defendant's custodial aide, whose duty was to clean up any food or drink that fell to the floor, and which indicated that salad had been on the floor of defendants' lunchroom for 20 minutes before plaintiff slipped on it, falling and injuring herself, there was a rational basis for the jury to infer (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499) that the complained of hazard had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants' personnel to discover it and take remedial measures (see, Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625; Kelsey v. Port Auth., 52 A.D.2d 801).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Keller v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1999
260 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

denying summary judgment because twenty minutes was sufficient for the jury to infer constructive notice

Summary of this case from Lyman v. Petsmart, Inc.
Case details for

Keller v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JOAN KELLER et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 374

Citing Cases

Lyman v. Petsmart, Inc.

More specifically, he estimated that he checked the area of the fall at around 5:00 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., (id.),…