Crapanzano v. Balkon Realty Co.

68 A.D.3d 1042, 890 N.Y.2d 355
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1042 (Crapanzano v. Balkon Realty Co.) 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
Crapanzano v. Balkon Realty Co., 68 A.D.3d 1042, 890 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on liquid on an interior staircase of a building owned by the defendant. She did not see any liquid on the staircase before she fell. After she fell, she observed that her clothing was wet and that there was liquid on one of the steps.

A defendant owner who moves for summary judgment in a “slip-and-fall” case has the initial burden of making a prima [1043]*1043facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see DeLeon v Westhab, Inc., 60 AD3d 888 [2009]; Sloane v Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522 [2008]; Grant v Radamar Meat, 294 AD2d 398 [2002]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Edwards v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 48 AD3d 405 [2008]; Arrufat v City of New York, 45 AD3d 710 [2007]; Green v City of New York, 34 AD3d 528 [2006]; Katz v Seminole Realty Corp., 10 AD3d 386 [2004]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). The assistant superintendent of the building inspected the staircase on a regular basis, and he did not see any liquid on the staircase or receive any complaints about the condition of the staircase prior to the accident. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bonilla v. Southside United Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 1472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Berardi v. Incorporated Village of Garden City
115 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ingram v. Long Island College Hospital
101 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bravo v. 564 Seneca Avenue Corp.
83 A.D.3d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Slintak v. Price Chopper Supermarkets
81 A.D.3d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Babb v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.
78 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 1042, 890 N.Y.2d 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crapanzano-v-balkon-realty-co-nyappdiv-2009.