| Thomas v Boston Props. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06398 [76 AD3d 460] |
| August 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Keisha Thomas, Respondent, v Boston Properties et al.,Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Hack, Piro, O'Day, Merklinger, Wallace & McKenna, P.A., New York (Rebecca K. Megnaof counsel), for Citigroup Center Condominium, appellant. Viscardi, Basner & Bigelow, P.C., Jamaica (Norman Basner of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered February 11,2010, which denied the motions by defendants Boston Properties and Citigroup Center forsummary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, andthe complaint dismissed as against those defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgmentaccordingly.
Plaintiff alleges she slipped on ice that formed on the floor of a revolving door during theevening rush hour. The moving defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summaryjudgment as a matter of law by establishing they had no notice of the defect alleged to havecaused plaintiff's fall, submitting evidence that they never received complaints with respect toaccumulation of snow or ice in the area where the accident occurred, that there were no reportsregarding burned out light bulbs, and that the area where plaintiff fell was well lit. In opposition,plaintiff relied on climatological data showing that the temperature never exceeded 17 degreesbetween 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the date of the accident, and on the 12-hour passage of timebetween the last snowfall and the time she fell to raise an inference of constructive notice.However, plaintiff conceded that she did not see the ice, and her evidence is equally susceptibleto the interpretation that it formed as a result of moisture tracked in by pedestrians. It is notalleged that these defendants created the allegedly hazardous condition, and the law imposes noobligation to take continuous remedial action to remove moisture accumulating as a result ofpedestrian traffic (see Pomahac vTrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 AD3d 462, 467[*2][2009]). Plaintiff thus failed to demonstrate that the conditionexisted for a sufficient length of time preceding her accident to afford defendants' employeessufficient opportunity to discover and remedy it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson,McGuire and RomÁn, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30296(U).]