AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DAVID MERRILL AND PATRICIA MERRILL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. FALLETI MOTORS, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by David Merrill (plaintiff) when he allegedly slipped and fell on ice on defendant's premises. Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint where, as here, there is an issue of fact whether there was a hazardous condition on defendant's property and, if so, whether defendant had constructive notice of it ( see generally Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-838; Miller v. City of Syracuse, 258 A.D.2d 947, 947-948, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 807). In support of the motion, defendant submitted the deposition testimony of its principal wherein he denied that he was aware of any ice. He further testified that, regardless of whether he saw ice, he spread salt on the walkway every morning. He did not, however, keep a log of his maintenance schedule to establish that he in fact salted the walkway that morning ( cf. Mueller v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 276 A.D.2d 819). In addition, defendant submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff wherein he testified that he entered the premises after it had been open for business for more than two hours and that, although the ice was present, no salt was evident on the walkway where he fell. Thus, by its own submissions, defendant raised an issue of fact with respect to constructive notice, i.e., whether the condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient length of time before plaintiff's accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it ( see Malcom v. Kapur, 278 A.D.2d 926; Perrone v. Ilion Main St. Corp., 254 A.D.2d 784; Gebo v. Jefferson Lewis Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 248 A.D.2d 1025).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MERRILL v. FALLETI MOTORS, INC
(Jun 14, 2004)