Boris Caicedo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Caicedo · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · January 5, 2026 · No. 21-CV-2219 (OEM) (CLP)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in Boris Caicedo’s personal injury action arising from a slip-and-fall incident. Applying New York substantive law and the federal Rule 56 summary judgment standard, the court held that Caicedo failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Home Depot created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that Home Depot affirmatively created the alleged puddle or greasy condition because the record contained no evidence of a deliberate and intentional affirmative act by Home Depot.
  2. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that Home Depot had actual notice because he submitted no evidence that an employee received a complaint or was otherwise alerted to the alleged puddle before the accident.
  3. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of constructive notice because he offered no evidence that the condition was visible and apparent, existed long enough to be discovered, was recurring, or would have been discovered through a reasonable inspection.
  4. Plaintiff was not entitled to discovery sanctions or preclusion. The court found no spoliation, and even assuming a discovery violation, preclusion was unwarranted because the remaining factors favored allowing the evidence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact that Home Depot affirmatively created the alleged dangerous condition.
  2. Whether Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact that Home Depot had actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition.
  3. Whether Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact that Home Depot had constructive notice through the condition's visibility, duration, recurrence, or an inadequate inspection procedure.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to discovery sanctions or preclusion based on alleged spoliation or delayed production of forklift maintenance records.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (36)

  • Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996)(followed)
  • Kirbaran v. Target Corp., 720 F. Supp. 3d 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), aff'd, 2025 WL 973050 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2025)(followed)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)(followed)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)(followed)
  • Amnesty Am. v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 122 (2d Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 854 (2d Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Borley v. United States, 22 F.4th 75, 78-81 (2d Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Akins v. Glen Falls City Sch. Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 535 (N.Y. 1981)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 36.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…