From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rouse v. Lex Real Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 2005
16 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5274.

March 24, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered December 30, 2003, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


There was no evidence that defendants created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of a hazard that could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care ( see Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency, 4 AD3d 204). The fact that rainwater was being tracked into the lobby does not constitute notice of a dangerous condition ( id.). Having received no complaints of a wet spot near the floor mat, defendants had no actual notice of the condition, and absent proof that the wet spot was sufficiently visible and had been there long enough to permit discovery and remedy before the accident, it cannot be inferred that they had constructive notice ( id.).


Summaries of

Rouse v. Lex Real Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 2005
16 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Rouse v. Lex Real Associates

Case Details

Full title:GERALD ROUSE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEX REAL ASSOCIATES et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 24, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
792 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

Elsner v. Bos. Props., Inc.

A landowner must maintain property in a reasonably safe condition. Its duty, however "is not limitless" (Di…

Santiago v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

In such cases, contrary to the majority's holding in this matter, the courts of this state have repeatedly…