Stasiak v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentLuciano, J.
I disagree with the majority that the defendant sustained its burden of proving prima facie as a matter of law that it was not afforded a reasonable time to remedy the hazardous condition of which it had actual notice. As the majority notes, it is well settled that in a slip and fall case such as this, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of that condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see, Mercer v City of New York, 88 NY2d 955; Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.