In Thomas v. Boston Props., the plaintiff allegedly slipped on ice that formed on the floor of a revolving door during the evening rush hour. Defendants offered evidence that they had no notice of the condition, never received complaints regarding the accumulation of snow or ice, and never received any reports that the area was poorly lit. In reversing the lower court’s denial of defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the First Department noted that plaintiff’s concession that she did not see the ice was susceptible to the interpretation that it formed as a result of moisture tracked in by pedestrians. Since defendants were not alleged to have created the condition, and the law does not impose an obligation to take continuous remedial action to remove moisture accumulating as a result of pedestrian traffic, the First Department reversed the lower court, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to place the defendants on notice.
Thanks to Lora Gleicher for her contribution to this post.