Rosario v. Bronx Park South III Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Bronx Park South III Associates, L.P.

90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 421 (Rosario v. Bronx Park South III Associates, L.P.) 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

Rosario v. Bronx Park South III Associates, L.P., 90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s evidence established prima facie that it had no constructive notice of the alleged wet condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The assertion of the injured plaintiff’s husband that he had observed water accumulate in the lobby of defendant’s building when it rained, including on the date of plaintiffs accident, raised no more than a general awareness that the floor became wet during inclement weather, which is insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing her injury (see Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734, 735 [2005]). Plaintiffs failed to produce competent evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether they had informed defendant of the hazardous condition in the subject building or whether defendant had received notice from any other source (see Rodriguez v 520 Audubon Assoc., 71 AD3d 417 [2010]). Plaintiffs never pleaded that inadequate lighting was a cause of the fall and, in any event, failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to that theory. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Defendant’s evidence established prima facie that it had no constructive notice of the alleged wet condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The assertion of the injured plaintiff’s husband that he had observed water accumulate in the lobby of defendant’s building when it rained, including on the date of plaintiffs accident, raised no more than a general awareness that the floor became wet during inclement weather, which is insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing her injury (see Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734, 735 [2005]). Plaintiffs failed to produce competent evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether they had informed defendant of the hazardous condition in the subject building or whether defendant had received notice from any other source (see Rodriguez v 520 Audubon Assoc., 71 AD3d 417 [2010]). Plaintiffs never pleaded that inadequate lighting was a cause of the fall and, in any event, failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to that theory. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-bronx-park-south-iii-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack