Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint in this action where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an icy
condition on defendant's property. Defendant's supervisor of grounds testified
that he and his crew had shoveled snow, removed ice, and salted and
sanded the parking lot after a snow fall the day before the accident,
and that any icy condition was addressed. This evidence showed that defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition.
In opposition, plaintiff presented no evidence that defendant created the condition, that it was
readily apparent, or that it was present for a sufficiently long period
of time so that defendant had an opportunity to remedy the alleged hazard. Nor did plaintiff describe with any specificity the
alleged condition that caused him to fall, from which it might be
inferred, without speculation, that it was visible and apparent,
particularly in view of the testimony of the supervisor of grounds that
he had cleared the area and no snow or ice remained.
Student note: While the issue was not addressed by the motion court, the Appellate Division found no
triable issue as to whether the lighting in the parking lot contributed
to plaintiff's fall. The record shows that defendant's supervisor of
grounds inspected the exterior lights several days prior to plaintiff's
fall and found them to be functioning properly, and plaintiff did not submit any contradictory evidence.
Case: Vidal v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07591 (1st Dept 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Medical malpractice, summary judgment, and a battle of the experts.
