Raymond Mercer et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, Respondent.

88 N.Y.2d 955, 670 N.E.2d 443, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1996).
July 9, 1996

2 No. 218 SSM 16 [1996 NY Int. 164]
Decided July 9, 1996

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Submitted by Alan Jay Binger, for appellants.
Submitted by Deborah R. Douglas, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, withcosts.
The evidence presented at trial, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, fails to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Nothing in the record suggests that defendant either affirmatively created the particular pool of grease or oil alleged to have caused plaintiff's fall, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence (Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, 249, affd for reasons stated below 64 NY2d 670). Thus, the Appellate Division properly reversed the judgment in plaintiffs' favor and dismissed the complaint.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Decided July 9, 1996

Raymond Mercer et al., Appellants, v. City of New York, Respondent.

88 N.Y.2d 955, 670 N.E.2d 443, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1996). July 9, 1996

88 N.Y.2d 955, 670 N.E.2d 443, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1996).
July 9, 1996