Rivera v. Target Department Store, Inc., 1:15-cv-07846

Plaintiff Aida Rivera slipped on a puddle of clear liquid in a Target store in Mount Vernon, NY on July 4, 2014 and sued for negligence (premises liability).
Rivera and her daughter were walking toward the toy department; Rivera did not see the water prior to slipping and could not identify its source or how long it had been present.
Multiple witnesses (plaintiff, her daughter, friends) observed the liquid only after the fall; one acquaintance testified she had traversed the area earlier that evening and saw no water.
Target employees prepared incident reports noting a wet spot that "dried up" quickly; store testimony described a policy of continuous floor inspection but no scheduled mopping times.
The case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds; Target moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of notice (actual or constructive).
The Magistrate Judge granted summary judgment for Target, holding plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive notice of the hazard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Actual notice (did Target know of the puddle before the fall?)	Rivera argued a jury could infer an employee actually saw the puddle.	Target argued no evidence employees saw or were told about the puddle before the fall.	Court: No actual notice — plaintiff produced no evidence of complaints or employee awareness.
Constructive notice (did the puddle exist long enough to be discovered?)	Rivera argued size of puddle and store inspections permit inference it existed long enough for discovery.	Target argued there is no evidence how long puddle existed; witnesses saw it only after the fall.	Court: No constructive notice — absent evidence of duration or circumstantial indicia, constructive notice not shown.
Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence	Rivera relied on puddle size and general inspection practices to create fact issue.	Target relied on testimony and lack of indicia (debris, footprints, video) to defeat inference.	Court: Size alone is insufficient; without indicia of duration, speculation cannot defeat summary judgment.
Burden on summary judgment in removed diversity case	Rivera urged factual disputes for jury.	Target argued Rule 56 applies and plaintiff must produce evidence of notice.	Court: Applied federal summary judgment standards and required plaintiff evidence of notice; none existed.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; draw inferences for nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (entry of summary judgment when nonmovant lacks essential proof)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (credibility and weighing of evidence are jury functions)
Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements of negligence under New York law)
McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment assessment and inferences)
Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (1986) (constructive notice requires condition be visible, apparent, and exist long enough to be discovered)