Opinion
2014-05-1
Sheila PHILLIP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C., New York (Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellant. Gordon & Silber, P.C., New York (Andrew B. Kaufman of counsel), for respondent.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C., New York (Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellant. Gordon & Silber, P.C., New York (Andrew B. Kaufman of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, SAXE, DeGRASSE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered June 10, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating lack of notice of the wet condition of the locker room floor where plaintiff allegedly slipped by submitting evidence that it followed its routine maintenance and inspection procedures, and that the condition was not observed either by defendant's staff when they inspected the area, or by plaintiff and her daughter ( see Warner v. Continuum Health Care Partners, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 636, 637, 953 N.Y.S.2d 187 [1st Dept.2012];Guttierez v. Lenox Hill Neighborhood House, 4 A.D.3d 138, 139, 771 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1st Dept.2004] ).
Plaintiff's and her daughter's testimony that they had seen water on the floor of the locker room on several other occasions and that the daughter had complained about it demonstrates, at most, that defendant had a general awareness of a wet condition, which is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to notice ( see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 646 N.E.2d 795 [1994];Guttierez, 4 A.D.3d at 139, 771 N.Y.S.2d 513;Gallais–Pradal v. YWCA of Brooklyn, 33 A.D.3d 660, 660, 822 N.Y.S.2d 314 [2d Dept.2006] ). The affidavit of plaintiff's expert was conclusory, and failed to cite any accepted industry practice, standard, code or regulation that was violated by defendant ( see Jones v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 706, 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 548 [1st Dept.2006] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.