Salgado v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salgado v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

105 A.D.3d 417, 962 N.Y.S.2d 129

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

DecidedApril 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 417 (Salgado v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Salgado v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 105 A.D.3d 417, 962 N.Y.S.2d 129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 7, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant American Airlines for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

American failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a wet floor. American did not affirmatively demonstrate that its agent was not responsible for creating the defective condition that caused plaintiffs fall. Rather, American attempted to establish the absence of negligence by merely pointing to gaps in plaintiffs account of the accident (see Dabbagh v Newmark Knight Frank Global Mgt. Servs., LLC, 99 AD3d 448, 450 [1st Dept 2012]). Although American’s facilities manager did testify that the cleaning company usually mopped [418]*418the terminal floor during the night when passenger traffic was lighter, he also noted that the company performed spot cleaning when notified of a need.

We have considered American’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 7, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant American Airlines for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

American failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a wet floor. American did not affirmatively demonstrate that its agent was not responsible for creating the defective condition that caused plaintiffs fall. Rather, American attempted to establish the absence of negligence by merely pointing to gaps in plaintiffs account of the accident (see Dabbagh v Newmark Knight Frank Global Mgt. Servs., LLC, 99 AD3d 448, 450 [1st Dept 2012]). Although American’s facilities manager did testify that the cleaning company usually mopped [418]*418the terminal floor during the night when passenger traffic was lighter, he also noted that the company performed spot cleaning when notified of a need.

We have considered American’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 417, 962 N.Y.S.2d 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salgado-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2013.