Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp.

646 N.E.2d 795, 84 N.Y.2d 967, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4126

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by286 cases

This text of 646 N.E.2d 795 (Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 646 N.E.2d 795, 84 N.Y.2d 967, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4126 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

*969 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff Helen Piacquadio slipped and fell in defendants’ restaurant on a terrazzo stair where liquid had accumulated to cover an area approximately 10 inches by 6 inches in size. Nothing in the record establishes that the terrazzo was otherwise dangerous or negligently maintained (see, Kline v Abraham, 178 NY 377). Because a "general awareness” that a dangerous condition may be present is legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused plaintiff’s fall (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 838; see also, Madrid v City of New York, 42 NY2d 1039), liability could be predicated only on failure of defendants to remedy the danger presented by the liquid after actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The evidence does not establish that defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall, and accordingly the complaint should be dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

*969 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff Helen Piacquadio slipped and fell in defendants’ restaurant on a terrazzo stair where liquid had accumulated to cover an area approximately 10 inches by 6 inches in size. Nothing in the record establishes that the terrazzo was otherwise dangerous or negligently maintained (see, Kline v Abraham, 178 NY 377). Because a "general awareness” that a dangerous condition may be present is legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused plaintiff’s fall (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 838; see also, Madrid v City of New York, 42 NY2d 1039), liability could be predicated only on failure of defendants to remedy the danger presented by the liquid after actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The evidence does not establish that defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall, and accordingly the complaint should be dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 N.E.2d 795, 84 N.Y.2d 967, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piacquadio-v-recine-realty-corp-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack