Majority
In the instant case, the plaintiff alleged that as he entered an elevator in Longwood’s building, he noticed an upright can of soda on the lobby floor near the elevator. After visiting his doctor on the third or fourth floor, the plaintiff descended in the same elevator; and when he stepped out of the elevator, he slipped on a puddle of soda. The plaintiff claimed that there were footprints in the soda, that the soda was dried in many spots and that his hands were sticky from the soda. About an hour had elapsed from the time the plaintiff had first entered the elevator and the time he fell.
These facts are insufficient to establish that Longwood had constructive notice of the spilled soda. The mere existence of the soda on the floor at the time of the accident is insufficient to impute notice to Longwood, and there is no evidence that the puddle of soda was present on the lobby floor when the plaintiff entered or for such a period of time as to give rise to constructive notice (see, Anderson v Klein’s Foods, 73 NY2d 835 ; Shildkrout v Board of Educ., 173 AD2d 603 ; Paciocco v Montgomery Ward, 163 AD2d 655 ; Sikora v Apex Beverage Corp., 282 App Div 193 , affd 306 NY 917 ). Balletta, J. R, Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Eddy v. Tops Friendly Markets 59 NY2d 692 p. 745
- Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority 99 AD2d 246 at 249 p. 745
- Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority 64 NY2d 670 p. 745
- Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History 67 NY2d 836 at 837 p. 745
- Anderson v. Klein's Foods, Inc. 73 NY2d 835 p. 745
- Shildkrout v. Board of Education 173 AD2d 603 p. 745
- Paciocco v. Ward 163 AD2d 655 p. 745
- Sikora v. Apex Beverage Corp. 306 NY 917 p. 745