Case Name: Wanda Garcia, Respondent, v. 1265 Morrison LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wanda Garcia, Respondent, v 1265 Morrison LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Andrias, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Wanda Garcia, Respondent, v 1265 Morrison LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
[997 NYS2d 62]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered August 8, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant 1265 Morrison LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff was injured after she allegedly slipped and fell on water as she walked down defendant's interior staircase, because defendant failed to submit evidence from a witness with knowledge as to the building's janitorial schedule in effect at the time of the accident and whether the schedule was followed on the day of the accident (see Seleznyov v New York City Tr. Auth., 113 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2014]; Gautier v 941 Intervale Realty LLC, 108 AD3d 481, 481-482 [1st Dept 2013]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiffs testimony, that immediately after the accident she noticed the stairs were wet and that there was a mop and bucket under the stairwell, provides a nonspeculative basis for her version of the accident and sufficiently establishes a nexus between the hazardous condition and the circumstances of her fall (see DiVetri v ABM Janitorial Serv., Inc., 119 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2014]; Yuk Ping Cheng Chan v Young T. Lee & Son Realty Corp., 110 AD3d 637, 637-638 [1st Dept 2013]). In focusing on the persuasiveness of plaintiff's evidence, defendant is asking this Court to engage in issue-determination rather than issue-finding (see Jacques v Richal Enters., 300 AD2d 45, 45-46 [1st Dept 2002]).
Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Andrias, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.