Faison v. Salumed Pharmacy, Inc.

Faison, 2025 NY Slip Op 05221 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · October 1, 2025 · No. Index No. 612679/18

Summary

This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reverses a trial court order granting summary judgment to pharmacy defendants in a personal injury slip-and-fall action. The court held that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of proving a lack of constructive notice of the wet floor condition because they only presented evidence of general cleaning practices rather than specific inspection records relative to the incident date. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the pharmacy defendants was denied.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.; ROBERT J. MILLER; DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA; ELENA GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
October 1, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 612679/18
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Salumed Pharmacy, Inc. and 5th Ave Drug, Inc.
Standard of review
law
Precedential value
published
Parties
Hudson Faison v. Salumed Pharmacy, Inc., et al.
Disposition
reversed

Topics

premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentcivil procedurenegligence

Practice areas

tortscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendants had constructive notice of the wet floor condition and therefore are liable for the plaintiff's injuries
  2. Whether summary judgment was proper under the lack of constructive notice standard

Holdings

  1. The appellate division reversed the summary‑judgment order, holding that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing lack of constructive notice and therefore summary judgment was improper.

Key quotations

[A] defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action
To meet its initial 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
Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice

Factual background

Hudson Faison slipped and fell on a wet tile floor in a pharmacy owned by Salumed Pharmacy, Inc. and 5th Ave Drug, Inc. in June 2018. He sued the owners for personal injuries, alleging the defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Procedural history

The plaintiff sued the defendants for personal injuries after slipping on a wet tile floor in June 2018. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground of lack of constructive notice. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the motion in part. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…