Hart v. 210 W. 77 St. LLC

Hart v. 210 W. 77 St. LLC (Appellate Division First Department 2024) · Appellate Division, First Department · December 31, 2024 · No. Index No. 160578/21 Appeal No. 3336 Case No. 2023-06148

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision reverses a trial court's denial of a condominium's motion for summary judgment in a premises liability action arising from a lobby slip-and-fall. Applying the "storm-in-progress" doctrine, the court found the defendant established prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating reasonable maintenance measures and a lack of actual or constructive notice of the specific wet condition. Consequently, the complaint against the condominium was dismissed.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Webber, J.P.; Moulton; Friedman; Mendez; Shulman
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
December 31, 2024
Docket number
Index No. 160578/21 Appeal No. 3336 Case No. 2023-06148
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County denying summary judgment and granting the motion; appellate division reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of the condominium.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Two Ten West 77 Condominium v. Betsy Hart
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

premises liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

tortscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the condominium is entitled to summary judgment because it lacked actual notice of the specific wet condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall
  2. Whether the "storm‑in‑progress" doctrine creates liability for the condominium
  3. Whether a defendant must cover all floor areas with mats to satisfy the reasonable‑care standard

Holdings

  1. The condominium is entitled to summary judgment because it failed to have actual or constructive notice of the specific wet condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
  2. The "storm‑in‑progress" doctrine does not create liability absent actual or constructive notice of the specific hazardous condition.
  3. A defendant is not required to cover every portion of its floors with mats to satisfy the reasonable‑care standard.

Factual background

Betsy Hart slipped and fell on a wet marble floor in the lobby of her condominium building during a snowstorm. Building staff had placed rubber mats throughout most of the lobby but left a small portion of the walkway uncovered. The condominium submitted certified weather reports showing a storm‑in‑progress and testified that staff regularly dry‑mopped wet spots.

Procedural history

The trial court denied the condominium's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff could establish actual or constructive notice of the wet floor. The condominium appealed, arguing lack of notice and that the "storm‑in‑progress" doctrine applied. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…