Opinion
11-30-2016
Amarjeet SOHI, appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
Gunilla Perez–Faringer, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (James C. Miller and Michael Flake of counsel), for respondents.
Gunilla Perez–Faringer, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (James C. Miller and Michael Flake of counsel), for respondents.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated September 10, 2015, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell on food that had fallen on the floor of the defendants' store. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendants, alleging that they had negligently permitted a hazardous condition to exist on the floor of the premises. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip- and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Mehta v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 12 N.Y.S.3d 269 ; see Finch v. Dake Bros., Inc., 139 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 33 N.Y.S.3d 325 ; Diers v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 134 A.D.3d 666, 19 N.Y.S.3d 780 ). To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff's fall (see Finch v. Dake Bros., Inc., 139 A.D.3d at 1002, 33 N.Y.S.3d 325 ; Campbell v. New York City Tr. Auth., 109 A.D.3d 455, 970 N.Y.S.2d 284 ; Warren v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 732, 733, 963 N.Y.S.2d 150 ).
Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motion, which included their maintenance record for the day of the incident, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Morahan–Gick v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 116 A.D.3d 747, 748, 982 N.Y.S.2d 897 ; Payen v. Western Beef Supermarket, 106 A.D.3d 710, 964 N.Y.S.2d 583 ; Lee v. Port Chester Costco Wholesale, 82 A.D.3d 842, 918 N.Y.S.2d 549 ; Dragotta v. Walmart, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 800, 801, 835 N.Y.S.2d 352 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.