Chung v. Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chung v. Hotel

16 A.D.3d 356, 791 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 356 (Chung v. Hotel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chung v. Hotel, 16 A.D.3d 356, 791 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 26, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There were no triable issues as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the slippery substance that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall in the elevator lobby area of their hotel as he was returning to work, such that the condition could have been remedied (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). There is no evidence as to how long the spill was on the floor. Nor is there evidence that [357]*357anyone ever complained—or was even aware—of the tendency for water or other liquids to accumulate on the floor, or the floor’s propensity to become slippery. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 26, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There were no triable issues as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the slippery substance that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall in the elevator lobby area of their hotel as he was returning to work, such that the condition could have been remedied (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). There is no evidence as to how long the spill was on the floor. Nor is there evidence that [357]*357anyone ever complained—or was even aware—of the tendency for water or other liquids to accumulate on the floor, or the floor’s propensity to become slippery. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 356, 791 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chung-v-hotel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack