Shernicoff v. 1700 Broadway Co.

304 A.D.2d 409, 757 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4084
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 409 (Shernicoff v. 1700 Broadway Co.) 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
Shernicoff v. 1700 Broadway Co., 304 A.D.2d 409, 757 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall in the lobby of defendants’ building, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that it was raining for an hour when he arrived at defendants’ building and walked through the lobby to the elevator bank, where he encountered a porter putting down mats; that in order to catch an open elevator door, he had to walk hastily and step around the porter and off the mat; and that he slipped on droplets of water on the floor from people, including himself, carrying umbrellas and tracking in the rain. Giving this evidence the basis of every favorable inference, it does not show that the allegedly dangerous wet condition was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time prior to the [410]*410accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it (see Keum Choi v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 278 AD2d 106 [2000]; Cottingham v Hammerson Fifth Ave., 259 AD2d 348 [1999]; Stoerzinger v Big V Supermarkets, 188 AD2d 790 [1992]). We have considered plaintiffs arguments that material issues exist as to whether defendants’ employees fulfilled their duty to mop the wet floor and promptly put down the mats, and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Gale v. BP/CG Center I LLC
49 A.D.3d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bernhard v. Bank of Montreal
41 A.D.3d 180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hilsman v. Sarwil Associates, L.P.
13 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
304 A.D.2d 409, 757 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shernicoff-v-1700-broadway-co-nyappdiv-2003.