Prior to entering a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building one Sunday morning, Emerito Muniz likely envisioned spending a quiet, uneventful day with his spouse. But this vision was quickly shattered when Muniz slipped and fell on an unidentified liquid, thought to be either urine or beer, covering the floor of the building's vestibule.
Muniz brought an action against NYCHA to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in the fall.
Although NYCHA denied responsibility and claimed that no liquids were present upon a caretaker's inspection of the area just prior to the end of his shift the previous evening, the Kings County Supreme Court denied NYCHA's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed. The appellate court was of the opinion that Muniz had failed to demonstrate that NYCHA had either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence prior to the accident.
What a mess!
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth.