AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
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
Advocates

RONALD SIEBER, respondent, v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC., defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant, AMERICAN MAINTENANCE, INC., defendant third-party defendant-appellant.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are granted, and the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims are dismissed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor of the premises owned by Estee Lauder, Inc. (hereinafter Estee). He contends that the condition which caused his fall was created when an employee of American Maintenance, Inc. (hereinafter American), filled a bucket of water from a slop sink in a closet in the vicinity of the corridor where he fell. Since there is no proof that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the wet spot, and the plaintiff's claim that an employee of American created the dangerous condition is mere speculation, the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment should have been granted (see Dwoskin v. Burger King Corp., 249 A.D.2d 358; Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the issue of whether Estee was entitled to conditional summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification from American.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SANTUCCI, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SIEBER v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC
(Apr 15, 2002)