Hyperlawhypertext legal database Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp. 84 N.Y.2d 967

← Cases

Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp.

84 N.Y.2d 967 Court N.Y. Decision date 1994-12-13 English

Contents

Majority

p. 967
[646 NE2d 795, 622 NYS2d 493]
Helen Piacquadio et al., Respondents, v Recine Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.
Argued October 26, 1994;
decided December 13, 1994
p. 968
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Kelly Flanagan Hodukavich & Goldberg, New York City (William G. Kelly and Carol R. Finocchio of counsel), for appellants.
Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., Michael J. Orlofsky and Robert G. Spevack of counsel), for respondents.
p. 969
OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff Helen Piacquadio slipped and fell in defendants’ restaurant on a terrazzo stair where liquid had accumulated to cover an area approximately 10 inches by 6 inches in size. Nothing in the record establishes that the terrazzo was otherwise dangerous or negligently maintained (see, Kline v Abraham, 178 NY 377 ). Because a "general awareness” that a dangerous condition may be present is legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused plaintiff’s fall (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 , 838; see also, Madrid v City of New York, 42 NY2d 1039 ), liability could be predicated only on failure of defendants to remedy the danger presented by the liquid after actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The evidence does not establish that defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused plaintiff to slip and fall, and accordingly the complaint should be dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cases cited