FAILED TO ADDRESS RECURRING LEAK CONDITION
After slipping and falling on a wet hallway floor, S.G. filed a personal injury case against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and others, seeking recompense for her injuries.
When she later moved for pre-trial relief – via motion for summary judgment – and asked the Kings County Supreme Court to find the defendants liable for her injury, the judge agreed and granted S.G.’s request.
On its review of the dispute, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that S.G. was required to demonstrate that the defendants had “actual or constructive notice” of the condition, and failed to take appropriate steps to address the perils presented (thus causing the loss or injury).
Here, since NYCHA’s own “supervisor caretaker” assigned to the building testified at a deposition that the defendants were aware that rainwater regularly leaked into the building, and conceded that the water penetration into the hallway area presented a “slip and fall hazard,” and further testified that the only remedial measures incorporated by the defendants were “spot mopping,” the AD2 thought that S.G. had sufficiently demonstrated defendants’ liability for their failure to properly address the recurring condition.
There was no mopping that up.
# # #
DECISION