| Signorelli v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00895 [70 AD3d 439] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Thomas Signorelli, Appellant, v The Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP, Mineola (John J. Ullrich of counsel),for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered on or about April 1,2009, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a wet floor in thevestibule of defendants' supermarket, granted defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied,and the complaint reinstated.
As plaintiff entered defendants' supermarket, he slipped and fell in the vestibule, which wascovered in linoleum tiles that were wet because "[i]t was raining all day and coming in." Heobserved no mats or signs warning of a slippery condition.
At his examination before trial, defendants' grocery clerk testified that, when it rained,"somebody would go and get some mats and put them in the front," but he did not rememberwhether he had ever seen "the porter place down mats in the vestibule area when it was raining."Nor did he recall what the weather was like on the day of the accident or whether he had seen"any mats down in the vestibule area that day."
On their motion, defendants denied actual or constructive knowledge of the allegedhazardous condition, contending that they had no duty to provide an ongoing remedy when aslippery condition is caused by moisture tracked into the premises during a constant rain.Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that plaintiff "failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise anissue of fact as to constructive notice that there was a recurrent dangerous condition with respectto rainy weather conditions." We disagree.
Plaintiff's statement that the floor was wet and slippery due to a constant rain is evidencesufficient to raise a factual question as to whether defendant knew or should have known of theexistence of a hazardous condition. His testimony constitutes evidence from someone withpersonal knowledge of the facts and, whether or not it is regarded as self-serving, it is sufficientto present an issue for trial (see Butler v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 198 AD2d 131, 132[1993]). Plaintiff identified the wet and slippery floor as the reason for his fall; thus, histestimony cannot be dismissed as mere speculation regarding causation (cf. Keum Choi vOlympia & York Water St. Co., 278 AD2d [*2]106, 106-107[2000] ["plaintiff inferred his fall was caused by water on the floor"]; Pagan v Local 23-25Intl. Ladies Garment Workers Union, 234 AD2d 37, 37 [1996] [plaintiff "could notremember whether or not the floor had been wet"]). In addition, defendants' employee testifiedthat it was the store's practice to put down mats during inclement weather. Together, thetestimony satisfies plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that a visible and apparent hazardouscondition had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants' employees to discoverand remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837[1986]) but that they failed to take reasonable measures to do so.
In any event, defendants' moving papers failed to make out a prima facie case for summaryjudgment. The testimony of defendants' employee does not establish that defendants lackedactual or constructive knowledge of the condition of their vestibule, only that the employee hadno recollection of conditions or remedial measures that might have been implemented on thedate of the accident (see Josephson v Crane Club, 264 AD2d 359, 360 [1999]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.