TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wallace v. Doral Tuscany Hotel

Gwendolyn Wallace v. Doral Tuscany Hotel

Wallace v. Doral Tuscany Hotel, 302 A.D.2d 255 (2003)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 18, 2003
Citations
302 A.D.2d 255755 N.Y.S.2d 3812003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1480

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered December 11, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on defendant hotel’s premises, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for lack of evidence that the water allegedly present in the hotel stairwell between the 7th and 8th floors where plaintiff slipped and fell was “visible and apparent and [in existence] 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 Natu *256 ral History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 ), or that defendant otherwise had notice of this water. “The fact that it had been raining for [some time] prior to the accident does not, without more, permit an inference of constructive notice.” (O’Rourke v Williamson, Picket, Gross, 260 AD2d 260, 261 ; Joseph v Chase Manhattan Bank, 277 AD2d 96 .) Nor are any issues of fact as to notice raised by the affidavit of plaintiff's witness, which does not indicate the time he observed slippery conditions on the stairwell. Finally, the absence of mats in the lobby (see Keum Choi v Olympia & York Water St. Co., 278 AD2d 106 ), or defendants’ guests’ use of the stairs because the elevators were out of order (cf. Kovelsky v City Univ., 221 AD2d 234 ), also do not raise issues of fact as to notice. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2004: 32005: 12011: 120042026peak 2004 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency Inc.4 A.D.3d 204 (2004)
  2. Chieffet v. New York City Transit Authority10 A.D.3d 526 (2004)
  3. Matcovsky v. Days Hotel10 A.D.3d 557 (2004)
  4. Arce v. 1704 Seddon Realty Corp.89 A.D.3d 602 (2011)
  5. Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp.22 A.D.3d 406 (2005)

Most recent

  1. Arce v. 1704 Seddon Realty Corp.89 A.D.3d 602 (2011)
  2. Weiss v. Gerard Owners Corp.22 A.D.3d 406 (2005)
  3. Matcovsky v. Days Hotel10 A.D.3d 557 (2004)
  4. Chieffet v. New York City Transit Authority10 A.D.3d 526 (2004)
  5. Garcia v. Delgado Travel Agency Inc.4 A.D.3d 204 (2004)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Gordon v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 492 N.E.2d 774 (N.Y. 1986) 1,565
In re Kovelsky, 221 A.D.2d 234 (1995) 28
Keum Choi v. Olympia & York Water St. Co., 278 A.D.2d 106 (2000) 21
O'Rourke v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 260 (1999) 14
Joseph v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 277 A.D.2d 96 (2000) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list