Practice point: The Appellate Division determined that the laundromat defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the mat on which plaintiff fell, as they did not submit evidence that they had inspected the mat within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The motion court should not have considered the affidavit of the laundromat defendants' general manager, since the defendants did not previously disclose the general manager as a witness and did not provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to identify her during the discovery process. In any event, the affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the laundromat defendants did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition .
Student note: Since the
laundromat defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is unnecessary
to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers.
Case: Francis v. Super Clean Laundromat, Inc., NY Slip Op 03650 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Triable issues of fact on a Labor Law claim.