Harrington v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

2024 NY Slip Op 00297

Rachel Harrington, appellant, v. New York City Transit Authority, respondent, et al., defendant.

No. 2022-01361, Index No. 150094/17

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

January 24, 2024

Harmon, Linder & Rogowsky (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Anna J. Ervolina, Brooklyn, NY (Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., WILLIAM G. FORD, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court Richmond County (Thomas P. Aliotta, J.), dated January 27 2022. The order granted the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant), and another, to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor of a bus owned by the defendant. In an order dated January 27, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiff appeals.

"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" (Fennell v New York City Tr. Auth., 119 A.D.3d 641, 641; see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d at 837). "To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell" (Fennell v New York City Tr. Auth., 119 A.D.3d at 641 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The deposition testimony of a dispatcher employed...