Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency Inc.

4 A.D.3d 204, 771 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1793

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 17, 2002, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewing this matter in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there is no evidence that defendants either created the wet condition in the lobby or had notice of a hazard that could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care (Kovelsky v City Univ. of N.Y., 221 AD2d 234 [1995]). The fact that it was raining and water was being tracked in does not constitute notice of a dangerous situation (Joseph v Chase Manhattan Bank, 277 AD2d 96 [2000]) warranting more than laying floor mats (see Keum Choi v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 278 AD2d 106 [2000]). Indeed, defendants were under no obligation to cover the entire floor with mats and to continuously mop up all tracked-in water (Kovelsky v City Univ. of N.Y., supra). There was neither active notice, in the form of complaints received, nor constructive notice of a hazard sufficiently visible as to permit discovery and remedy by defendants (Yearwood v Cushman & Wakefield, 294 AD2d 568 [2002]). In the absence of proof as to how long a condition existed, no inference can be drawn that defendants had constructive notice of a dangerously wet floor (Wallace v Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 AD2d 255 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.E, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.