Clement v. Trump

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clement v. Trump

272 A.D.2d 131, 708 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384

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

DecidedMay 9, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 131 (Clement v. Trump) 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

Clement v. Trump, 272 A.D.2d 131, 708 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the liquid that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall on the stairs leading up from defendant’s hotel’s cafeteria. Such issue is raised by the deposition testimony of plaintiff and the affidavit of a former employee of defendant that liquid spillage and paper debris were “always,” “without fail * * * on an almost everyday basis,” on the stairs notwithstanding that complaints about the resulting dangerously slippery condition were frequently made to defendant’s personnel (see, Megally v 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the liquid that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall on the stairs leading up from defendant’s hotel’s cafeteria. Such issue is raised by the deposition testimony of plaintiff and the affidavit of a former employee of defendant that liquid spillage and paper debris were “always,” “without fail * * * on an almost everyday basis,” on the stairs notwithstanding that complaints about the resulting dangerously slippery condition were frequently made to defendant’s personnel (see, Megally v 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 131, 708 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clement-v-trump-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack