In a decision dated December 5, 2024, the Hon. Ulysses B. Leverett granted our client 82 Associates LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law. The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the basement of the premises known as 37-02 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York, due to water or other wet substance. It is claimed that 82 Associates, the owner of the premises, was negligent in permitting the water or other wet substance to become and remain at the location and that it had actual and constructive of the condition. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified as part of his morning “sweep” of the premises, he went down the stairs to the basement and walked across the section of floor where he subsequently slipped on his way to the lunchroom. He did not observe water on the floor and/or have difficulty walking in the area. After the plaintiff completed his morning “sweep” of the basement, and as he was returning to the main level, his left foot slipped on droplets of water on the floor and he fell. Plaintiff admitted that he believed the water had come from the drain in the basement. He admitted that he did not see water coming from the drain and did not know where the water came from or when the water spilled to the ground. The plaintiff referred to a past flood in a different location resulting from the roof and another incident which involved water backup, subsequent to his accident, resulting from heavy rain. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that an owner has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its property under the circumstances. Plaintiff also argued that the defendant was aware that water would flow from the drain. However, the Court found that 82 Associates’ general awareness of this recurring condition was insufficient to establish its constructive notice of the alleged water on the basement floor which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Here, the plaintiff was unable to testify that he observed any water in the area he was walking in, before he fell. Further, there was no evidence the condition existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident. According to the Court, plaintiff’s inability to make the required showing “‘create[d] the possibility that the condition may have emanated only moments before the accident, through no fault or with no knowledge of the defendant, any other condition being pure speculation’”. In light of the foregoing, the Court granted 82 Associates summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether the defendant had notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall and because plaintiff failed to establish, in opposition to the motion, that the source of the water at issue was the drain system and that the defendant had immediate notice of it.

Higinio Hago v. 82 Associates LLC et al., Index No. 701065/2020 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co., Dec. 5, 2024)