From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kovelsky v. City University of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1995
221 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 21, 1995

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Albert Blinder, J.).


Claimant failed to establish that defendant had created a dangerous condition, or had constructive or actual knowledge that there was moisture on the second floor of the building and that defendant could have prevented the condition through reasonable care ( Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107).

Defendant was not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in, melting snow ( Seiden v National Commercial Bank Trust, 57 Misc.2d 132). Here, the discovery of the wet floor was essentially contemporaneous with the accident itself ( Boccaccino v Our Lady of Pity R.C. Church, 18 A.D.2d 1055).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Kovelsky v. City University of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1995
221 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Kovelsky v. City University of New York

Case Details

Full title:DAMON KOVELSKY, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, GLORIA…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 1

Citing Cases

Pomahac v. Trizechahn 1065 Avenue

ut where the internal guideline or policy requires a standard that transcends the standard required by the…

Zonitch v. Plaza at Latham

We affirm. Plaintiffs' argument that the "storm in progress" doctrine ( see, e.g., Downes v. Equitable Life…