Spagnola v. Trump Taj Mahal, Inc.

261 A.D.2d 604, 690 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5684
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 24, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 604 (Spagnola v. Trump Taj Mahal, Inc.) 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
Spagnola v. Trump Taj Mahal, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 604, 690 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated April 14, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At approximately 10:30 a.m. on July 18, 1994, the plaintiff Ida Spagnola slipped on what she believed to be an accumulation of water on a tile floor at the Sultan’s Feast Restaurant operated by the defendant in Atlantic City, New Jersey. As the Supreme Court found, the defendant made an initial showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence which established that no “wet mopping” had been done between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and that “wet mopping” was instead routinely performed during the “graveyard shift”, prior to the opening of the restaurant at 6:30 a.m. While the plaintiff submitted evidence which tended to establish that an employee of the defendant had been seen in the area using a mop shortly before the accident, there is inadequate evidence to associate that mopping, which, may have been “dry mopping”, with the accumulation of water upon which the plaintiff later slipped. We therefore agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an issue of fact as to whether the defendant created, or had actual or constructive notice of, the condition which caused the accident (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nisimov v. Ocean Properties, LLC
10 A.D.3d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rivas v. 525 Building Co.
306 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Sandstedt v. Flynn's Enterprises, Inc.
305 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Birthwright v. Malverne Union Free School District
295 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sanchez v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc.
279 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 A.D.2d 604, 690 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spagnola-v-trump-taj-mahal-inc-nyappdiv-1999.