KOVELSKY v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

Claimant failed to establish that defendant had created a dangerous condition, or had constructive or actual knowledge that there was moisture on the second floor of the building and that defendant could have prevented the condition through reasonable care ( Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107).

Defendant was not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in, melting snow ( Seiden v National Commercial Bank Trust, 57 Misc.2d 132). Here, the discovery of the wet floor was essentially contemporaneous with the accident itself ( Boccaccino v Our Lady of Pity R.C. Church, 18 A.D.2d 1055).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.