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

BERTHA FIELDING, ET AL., appellants, v. RACHLIN MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL., respondents.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motions are denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

At trial, the injured plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell in a puddle of rainwater located in the basement of the apartment building where she resided. After her fall, she observed rainwater entering the basement passageway through a window, which was open despite a building policy that the defendants' employees were obligated to close all windows during a heavy rainstorm.

It is well settled that to prove a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that the defendants either created the defective condition or had actual or constructive notice of it ( see Russo v. Eveco Dev. Corp., 256 A.D.2d 566; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836). A defendant who has actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition can be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of that condition ( see Freund v. Ross-Rodney Hous. Corp., 292 A.D.2d 341; Garcia v. U-Haul Co., 303 A.D.2d 453).

The trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs made out a prima facie case by presenting evidence which raised an issue of fact as to whether the defendants had constructive notice of such condition and thus could be held liable. The trier of fact could rationally conclude that the defendants had actual notice of a recurring condition based on the intensity and duration of the storm prior to the accident, the plaintiffs' testimony concerning the condition of the passageway floor, the building superintendent's testimony about previous accumulations of rainwater resulting from open windows, and the failure of the doorman to comply with the building rule requiring the closure of basement windows during the rainstorm ( see Friedman v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, 302 A.D.2d 491; Coletta v. City of New York, 291 A.D.2d 527; Garcia v. U-Haul Co., supra).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FIELDING v. RACHLIN MANAGEMENT CORP
(Oct 27, 2003)