Practice point: The Appellate Division determined that the laundromat defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing
their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to
establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous
condition of the mat on which plaintiff fell, as they did not submit evidence that they
had inspected the mat within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The motion court should not have considered the affidavit of the laundromat defendants' general
manager, since the
defendants did not previously disclose the general manager as a witness and did not
provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to identify her during the discovery process. In any event, the affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate, prima
facie, that the laundromat defendants did not have constructive notice of the alleged
hazardous condition .
Student note: Since the
laundromat defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is unnecessary
to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers.
Case: Francis v. Super Clean Laundromat, Inc., NY Slip Op 03650 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Triable issues of fact on a Labor Law claim.
