In response to defendant’s prima facie showing, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to notice. “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). The evidence offered by plaintiff was insufficient to establish how the “gooky” substance got on the floor or how long it had been there before the accident (see Strowman v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 252 AD2d 384 [1998]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
Franco v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.
824 N.Y.S.2d 269
N.Y. App. Div.2006Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.
