Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed an order granting summary judgment to defendants in a premises-liability action involving a wet and slippery lobby floor. The court held that defendants failed to establish the storm-in-progress rule, reasonable remedial precautions, or lack of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants established that the storm in progress rule protected them from liability for Rodney's fall.
- Whether defendants made a prima facie showing that they took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet lobby floor.
- Whether defendants established that they lacked constructive or actual notice of the hazardous condition.
Holdings
- Defendants failed to demonstrate that the storm in progress rule protected them from liability because they submitted no weather reports or expert opinions showing that an ongoing storm existed when plaintiff fell, and plaintiff's conclusory statement that it was snowing was insufficient.
- Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they exercised reasonable care to remedy the wet lobby condition.
- Defendants failed to demonstrate that they lacked constructive or actual notice of the wet and slippery floor.
Key quotations
“all of the circumstances regarding a defendant's maintenance efforts must be scrutinized in ascertaining whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in remedying a dangerous condition”
“because it was wet in the lobby”
Factual background
Rodney allegedly fell on a wet and slippery lobby floor while traveling between the building entrance and a stairway. Defendants relied on the storm in progress rule and evidence that the superintendent generally placed wet-floor signs and dry-mopped when it rained or snowed, but the superintendent could not recall whether those precautions were taken on the accident date. A Montefiore human resources manager testified that she and at least two other people had slipped in the lobby before Rodney's fall and that she reported the condition before the accident.
Procedural history
Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the motion of defendants 840 Westchester Avenue NMA, LLC, 840 Westchester Avenue NPPN, LLC, 840 Westchester Avenue NPPS, LLC, and 840 Westchester Holdings, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, denied the motion, and reinstated the complaint.
Remand instructions
The summary judgment motion was denied and the complaint reinstated. No further specific remand instructions were stated.