Case Name: Longina Gifford, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Markoski, Deceased, Respondent, v. Commerce Bank et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-02-16
Citations: 92 A.D.3d 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: Longina Gifford, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Markoski, Deceased, Respondent, v Commerce Bank et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
Longina Gifford, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Markoski, Deceased, Respondent, v Commerce Bank et al., Appellants.
[938 NYS2d 436]

Opinion:
Defendants' motions for summary judgment should have been granted because they demonstrated that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and plaintiffs decedent's deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the cleaning contractor caused or created the condition. Concur — Friedman, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.