Ramirez v KBC Food Corp 2024 NY Slip Op 33551(U) October 7, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158773/2020 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 158773/2020 ERICA RAMIREZ MOTION DATE 02/27/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -
KBC FOOD CORP D/B/A C-TOWN, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61, 62, 63,64, 65, 77, 79, 80,81,82, 84,85, 86, 87, 88, 89 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
In this personal injury action arising out of plaintiffs slip and fall on the floor of a C-
T own grocery store, defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 to
dismiss the complaint.
BACKGROUND
At around 4 p.m. on September 6, 2019, plaintiff stepped away from her work at a nail
salon to get something to eat from the C-Town grocery store located at 1721 1st Avenue, New
York, NY 10128 (the store) (NYSCEF Doc No 49, 42:23-45:16). The store was about a five-
minute walk from the salon, and it was raining (id., 43:3-23, 45: 13-16). Plaintiff was wearing
"nonslip slip on shoes" (id., 48: 17-49: 17). 1 When plaintiff arrived at the front entrance, the
automatic doors slid open and she walked inside (id., 52: 18-53: 11). A piece of cardboard had
been laid out on the floor just past the doors (id., 54: 10-55: 19). When plaintiff stepped onto it,
1 Plaintiff first called the shoes she wore "slippers," but it appears she was wearing thong sandals (id.). 158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
her foot slipped forward and she fell on her back, using her hands to break her fall (id., 58:4-22).
She then realized that the cardboard was wet from rainwater tracked in by other customers (id.,
55:3-15). An ambulance was called, and paramedics helped plaintiff up and onto a stretcher and
brought her to a hospital where she was treated for her injuries (id., 64:7-65:25).
C-Town general manager Noe Leal testified that the store often laid out big pieces of
cardboard at the entrance on rainy days in order "to help maintain the floor a little bit drier"
(NYSCEF Doc No 88, 24:7-15). Once the cardboard became "too wet, [they] just replace[d]
them" with a new piece (id., 26:9-12, 33: 10-13 [explaining that when "they're too wet, ... they
start to break down apart [and] become undone"). On the day of plaintiff's accident, Leal did not
have a record of the last time the carboard had been replaced but testified that he "know[s] those
were changed like two times before ... because they were wet" (id., 32: 16-33: 17). Leal, who
witnessed plaintiff's accident, also testified that plaintiff "was running" when she entered the
store (id., 34:14-21).
DISCUSSION
"It is well settled that 'the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima
facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact."' (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,
1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). "Failure to make
such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing
papers." (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] [internal citations
omitted]). "Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party
opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
issues of fact which require a trial of the action." ( Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-554
[1st Dept 2010], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 342).
"The court's function on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if any
triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues or to assess credibility."
(Meridian Mgmt. Corp. v Cristi Cleaning Serv. Corp., 70 AD3d 508, 510-511 [1st Dept 2010]
[internal citations omitted]). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be
examined "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" (Schmidt v One New York Plaza
Co., 153 AD3d 427,428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339
[2011]) and bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of
fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the
existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (id.).
Defendant argues that plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the storm-in-
progress defense, which "is based on the principle that there is no liability for injuries related to
falling on accumulated snow and ice until after the storm has ceased, in order to allow workers a
reasonable period of time to clean the walkways" (Powell v MLG Hillside Assocs., L.P., 290
AD2d 345, 345 [!81 Dept 2002] [emphasis added]). However, "the doctrine has [not] been
applied to conditions caused by a storm where the only precipitation is rain" (Hitsman v Sarwil
Assocs., L.P., 13 AD3d 692, 693-94 [3 rd Dept 2004]; Robinson v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip
Op 04649 [!81 Dept 2019] ["Under the circumstances of this case" wherein plaintiff slipped in a
puddle, "the storm in progress doctrine did not apply"]; Toner v National R.R. Passenger Corp.,
71 AD3d 454 [!81 Dept 2010]; Coston v Kawasar Haque, 2014 NY Slip Op 31037[U], *6 [SC
NY Co 2014] ["The doctrine does not apply to conditions caused by a storm where the only
precipitation is rain"]). Indeed, each case defendant cites involves dangerous conditions caused
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
by snow and ice (Sherman v New York State Thruway Auth., 27 NY3d 1019 [2016] [fell on icy
sidewalk]; Guntur v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 485,485 [!81 Dept 2013] [fell on "wet icy
dirt"]; Powell, 290 AD2d; McConologue v Summer St. Stamford Corp., 16 AD3d 468 [2 nd Dept
2005] [fell on black ice]; Dowden v Long Island R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2 nd Dept 2003] [fell on
accumulated snow and ice]; Martin v Wagner, 30 AD3d 733, 733 [3 rd Dept 2006] [fell as a result
of an "ice-snow mix"]). Thus, the storm-in-progress defense is inapplicable to this case.
Defendant next argues that the wet condition of the carboard was open and obvious and
not inherently dangerous; and that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her fall because "she
was running in slippers while it was raining" (NYSCEF Doc No 44).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ramirez v KBC Food Corp 2024 NY Slip Op 33551(U) October 7, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158773/2020 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 158773/2020 ERICA RAMIREZ MOTION DATE 02/27/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -
KBC FOOD CORP D/B/A C-TOWN, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61, 62, 63,64, 65, 77, 79, 80,81,82, 84,85, 86, 87, 88, 89 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
In this personal injury action arising out of plaintiffs slip and fall on the floor of a C-
T own grocery store, defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 to
dismiss the complaint.
BACKGROUND
At around 4 p.m. on September 6, 2019, plaintiff stepped away from her work at a nail
salon to get something to eat from the C-Town grocery store located at 1721 1st Avenue, New
York, NY 10128 (the store) (NYSCEF Doc No 49, 42:23-45:16). The store was about a five-
minute walk from the salon, and it was raining (id., 43:3-23, 45: 13-16). Plaintiff was wearing
"nonslip slip on shoes" (id., 48: 17-49: 17). 1 When plaintiff arrived at the front entrance, the
automatic doors slid open and she walked inside (id., 52: 18-53: 11). A piece of cardboard had
been laid out on the floor just past the doors (id., 54: 10-55: 19). When plaintiff stepped onto it,
1 Plaintiff first called the shoes she wore "slippers," but it appears she was wearing thong sandals (id.). 158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002
1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
her foot slipped forward and she fell on her back, using her hands to break her fall (id., 58:4-22).
She then realized that the cardboard was wet from rainwater tracked in by other customers (id.,
55:3-15). An ambulance was called, and paramedics helped plaintiff up and onto a stretcher and
brought her to a hospital where she was treated for her injuries (id., 64:7-65:25).
C-Town general manager Noe Leal testified that the store often laid out big pieces of
cardboard at the entrance on rainy days in order "to help maintain the floor a little bit drier"
(NYSCEF Doc No 88, 24:7-15). Once the cardboard became "too wet, [they] just replace[d]
them" with a new piece (id., 26:9-12, 33: 10-13 [explaining that when "they're too wet, ... they
start to break down apart [and] become undone"). On the day of plaintiff's accident, Leal did not
have a record of the last time the carboard had been replaced but testified that he "know[s] those
were changed like two times before ... because they were wet" (id., 32: 16-33: 17). Leal, who
witnessed plaintiff's accident, also testified that plaintiff "was running" when she entered the
store (id., 34:14-21).
DISCUSSION
"It is well settled that 'the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima
facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact."' (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,
1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). "Failure to make
such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing
papers." (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] [internal citations
omitted]). "Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party
opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002
2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
issues of fact which require a trial of the action." ( Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-554
[1st Dept 2010], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 342).
"The court's function on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if any
triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues or to assess credibility."
(Meridian Mgmt. Corp. v Cristi Cleaning Serv. Corp., 70 AD3d 508, 510-511 [1st Dept 2010]
[internal citations omitted]). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be
examined "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" (Schmidt v One New York Plaza
Co., 153 AD3d 427,428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339
[2011]) and bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of
fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the
existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (id.).
Defendant argues that plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the storm-in-
progress defense, which "is based on the principle that there is no liability for injuries related to
falling on accumulated snow and ice until after the storm has ceased, in order to allow workers a
reasonable period of time to clean the walkways" (Powell v MLG Hillside Assocs., L.P., 290
AD2d 345, 345 [!81 Dept 2002] [emphasis added]). However, "the doctrine has [not] been
applied to conditions caused by a storm where the only precipitation is rain" (Hitsman v Sarwil
Assocs., L.P., 13 AD3d 692, 693-94 [3 rd Dept 2004]; Robinson v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip
Op 04649 [!81 Dept 2019] ["Under the circumstances of this case" wherein plaintiff slipped in a
puddle, "the storm in progress doctrine did not apply"]; Toner v National R.R. Passenger Corp.,
71 AD3d 454 [!81 Dept 2010]; Coston v Kawasar Haque, 2014 NY Slip Op 31037[U], *6 [SC
NY Co 2014] ["The doctrine does not apply to conditions caused by a storm where the only
precipitation is rain"]). Indeed, each case defendant cites involves dangerous conditions caused
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002
3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
by snow and ice (Sherman v New York State Thruway Auth., 27 NY3d 1019 [2016] [fell on icy
sidewalk]; Guntur v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 485,485 [!81 Dept 2013] [fell on "wet icy
dirt"]; Powell, 290 AD2d; McConologue v Summer St. Stamford Corp., 16 AD3d 468 [2 nd Dept
2005] [fell on black ice]; Dowden v Long Island R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2 nd Dept 2003] [fell on
accumulated snow and ice]; Martin v Wagner, 30 AD3d 733, 733 [3 rd Dept 2006] [fell as a result
of an "ice-snow mix"]). Thus, the storm-in-progress defense is inapplicable to this case.
Defendant next argues that the wet condition of the carboard was open and obvious and
not inherently dangerous; and that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her fall because "she
was running in slippers while it was raining" (NYSCEF Doc No 44). In opposition, plaintiff
argues that "[t]he cardboard itself concealed the wet floor and obscured the slippery condition
created between the cardboard and the floor"; and plaintiff testified that she walked (not ran) into
the store wearing slip resistant shoes (NYSCEF Doc No 85). Plaintiff has thus raised issues of
fact, as it is unclear from the record how her fall occurred (i.e., whether it was caused by a
concealed hazard or an obvious one) and conflicting testimony has been submitted by the parties
as to plaintiff's shoes and whether she was walking or running at the time of her fall (Lowman v
Consolidated Edison Co. ofN.Y, Inc., 220 AD3d 510,511 [!81 Dept 2023] [summary judgment
"properly denied" where contradictory testimony was submitted]; Matter ofHalpern v White,
189 AD3d 407,408 [!81 Dept 2020] ["Issues of fact presented by ... conflicting deposition
testimony[] preclude summary judgment"]; Evans v Acosta, 169 AD3d 438,439 [1 st Dept 2019]
["The conflicting testimony of the two eyewitnesses concerning how plaintiff [fell] present
triable issues of fact and credibility precluding summary judgment"]).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/8/A C-TOWN Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 002
4 of 5 [* 4] INDEX NO. 158773/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024
ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
10/7/2024 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.
~ ~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
158773/2020 RAMIREZ, ERICA vs. KBC FOOD CORP D/B/A C-TOWN Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 002
5 of 5 [* 5]