In T* v. New York City Housing Authority, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a premises liability claim brought by T* against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). T* alleged that he sustained injuries after slipping on a paper plate in the stairwell of a NYCHA building. However, the court upheld the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Housing Authority, concluding that the defendant had not breached its duty of care.
The case hinged on whether NYCHA had "constructive notice" of the hazardous condition—an essential element in premises liability cases. NYCHA successfully demonstrated, through detailed testimony and documentation, that it had implemented and followed routine safety inspections. A building caretaker testified to having completed a safety walk-down on the morning of the incident and confirmed that he would have addressed any visible hazards, such as garbage or faulty lighting. This account was independently corroborated by the caretaker’s supervisor and a checklist completed contemporaneously with the inspection. The superintendent also submitted an affidavit stating there were no related complaints or maintenance requests in the relevant time frame.
In contrast, T* failed to introduce any evidence indicating that the stairwell was subject to a recurring hazardous condition or that NYCHA had specific knowledge of the paper plate’s presence. The plaintiff's argument regarding a lighting outage was similarly unavailing; there was no evidence that NYCHA was aware of any such outage prior to the incident, and as the court emphasized, *constructive notice* cannot be established through speculation or post-incident observations.
Ultimately, the court concluded that NYCHA's general awareness of debris in stairwells did not equate to constructive notice of the specific danger that caused the plaintiff’s fall. Absent a triable issue of fact, the court affirmed the dismissal, underscoring the high bar plaintiffs must meet in slip-and-fall cases on municipal property without direct evidence of notice or a recurring pattern of negligence.
Notice how that didn't end so well? Could they have plated that differently?
# # #
DECISION