DUNCAN v. NEW YORK CITY TRAN. AUTH

The action was properly dismissed in the absence of evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the puddle in the subway car that caused plaintiff to slip and fall as she exited. Since the storm was ongoing, "the accumulation could have occurred as a result of water dripping from the clothing or umbrellas of other passengers who had boarded the subway car immediately prior to" plaintiff's attempted exit ( Alatief v. New York City Tr. Auth., 256 A.D.2d 371, 371-372, citing Low v. New York City Tr. Auth., 237 A.D.2d 493). It would be unreasonable to expect defendant to constantly clean the floors in all the subway cars during an ongoing storm ( see, Bethel v. New York City Tr. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 348, 356; compare, Lesser v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 157 A.D.2d 352, affd sub nom. Fishman v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 79 N.Y.2d 1031).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.