Case Name: Margo Lennard, Appellant, v. Mendik Realty Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-03-29
Citations: 8 N.Y.3d 909
Docket Number: 
Parties: Margo Lennard, Appellant, v Mendik Realty Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
[865 NE2d 1223, 834 NYS2d 57]
Margo Lennard, Appellant, v Mendik Realty Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Decided March 29, 2007
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo P.C., New York City (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Charles J. Siegel, New York City (Jack L. Cohen of counsel), for respondents and third-party plaintiffs.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that Court for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that Court.
Plaintiff contends that she was injured when she slipped and fell on loose floor tiles in a bathroom at her workplace. Defendants, owners and managers of the premises, failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective floor tiles as a matter of law (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; see also Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9, 19 [2001]). Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.