Case ID: ny3d_29/html/1136-17.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[83 NE3d 853, 61 NYS3d 523]
    Dolores Parietti et al., Appellants, v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
    Decided September 14, 2017
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Blackstone Law Group, LLP, New York City (Justin B. Perri, Alexander J. Urbelis and John D. Lovi of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor, Esqs., Northport (Patricia A. O’Connor of counsel), for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and the motion of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, insofar as asserted against them, denied. In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249 [1984], affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 670 [1984]). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman.