Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Mercer v. City of New York 88 N.Y.2d 955

← Cases

Mercer v. City of New York

88 N.Y.2d 955 Court N.Y. Decision date 1996-07-09 English

Contents

Majority

p. 955
[670 NE2d 443, 647 NYS2d 159]
Raymond Mercer et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.
Decided July 9, 1996
p. 956
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Rosenthal & Druyan, Bronx (Alan Jay Binger of counsel), for appellants.
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Deborah R. Douglas and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The evidence presented at trial, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fails to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Nothing in the record suggests that defendant either affirmatively created the particular pool of grease or oil alleged to have caused plaintiffs fall, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246 , 249, affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 670 ). Thus, the Appellate Division properly reversed the judgment in plaintiffs’ favor and dismissed the complaint.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited