In D* v M* N* Hospital, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court’s decision that had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital. The case centers on a slip-and-fall incident in which the plaintiff, CD, allegedly sustained injuries after slipping on a puddle of water outside an elevator in the hospital.
The crux of the appellate court’s analysis lies in the doctrine of premises liability, which imposes a duty on property owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. In slip-and-fall cases, a defendant seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it.
The hospital argued that it lacked notice of the puddle and did not create the condition. However, the court found that the hospital failed to meet its burden of proof. Specifically, the hospital relied only on general cleaning and inspection practices, without offering any specific evidence about when the area near the elevator was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident. This omission proved fatal to its motion.
The court emphasized that constructive notice cannot be rebutted by vague references to routine maintenance. Instead, defendants must provide concrete details—such as logs or testimony—showing the exact timing of inspections or cleanings. Because the hospital did not do so, the appellate court held that the defendants had not established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
As a result, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that defendants in premises liability cases must present specific and timely evidence to defeat claims of constructive notice.
Think the hospital is now taking notice?
# # #
DECISION