Smith v. Genting N.Y., LLC

Opinion

Smith v Genting N.Y., LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 04339

July 8, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Sophia L. Smith, appellant,

v

Genting New York, LLC, etc., respondent.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 8, 2026

2025-00410, (Index No. 701381/23)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Helen Voutsinas

Laurence L. Love

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, NY (John S. Manessis of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, NY (Ying Hua Huang of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Esposito, J.), dated December 11, 2024. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on a liquid substance at the defendant's premises. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that it neither created nor had notice of the alleged liquid condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. In an order dated December 11, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case can demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by "'making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it'" (Rogers v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 226 AD3d 1056, 1057, quoting Mehta v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 129 AD3d 1037, 1038). "To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the] defendant's employees to discover and remedy it" (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; see Siltz v Golub Corp., 243 AD3d 828). "In order to meet its prima facie burden 'on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'" (Lisker v Vue Catering, Inc., 237 AD3d 921, 922, quoting Arbit v Costco Wholesale Corp., 230 AD3d 1089, 1090). "'Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question'" (id., quoting Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 169 AD3d 947, 948). Here, the defendant failed to submit uncontroverted evidence concerning the specific cleaning or inspection of the area relative to the time of the plaintiff's fall (id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

LASALLE, P.J., VOUTSINAS, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court