Joseph v. Chase Manhattan Bank
This text of 277 A.D.2d 96 (Joseph v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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.
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2000, which, in an action against a bank and a cleaning contractor for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped on the floor of an automated teller lobby, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The action was properly dismissed absent any evidence as to the size of the puddle on which plaintiff allegedly slipped and how long it was present before the accident. The fact that it had been raining for several hours before the accident does not, without more, permit an inference of constructive notice (see, O’Rourke v Williamson, Picket, Gross, 260 AD2d 260; cf., Cottingham v Hammerson Fifth Ave., 259 AD2d 348). Nor can defendants be held liable, absent constructive notice, on the basis of any performance obligations in their contract pertaining to the placement of mats in inclement weather (see, O’Rourke v Williamson, Picket, Gross, supra). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
277 A.D.2d 96, 716 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-2000.