| Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06479 [29 NY3d 1136] |
| September 14, 2017 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, October 25, 2017 |
| Dolores Parietti et al., Appellants, v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
Decided September 14, 2017
Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 140 AD3d 1039, reversed.
Blackstone Law Group, LLP, New York City (Justin B. Perri, Alexander J. Urbelis and John D. Lovi of counsel), for appellants.
Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, Esqs., Northport (Patricia A. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and the motion of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, insofar as asserted against them, denied. In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (see Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249 [1984], affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 670 [1984]). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence.
Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman.