Slip & fall accidents cause injury. Here, the plaintiff was injured when her foot got caught in the "pocket" of plastic sheeting during repairs in her studio apartment.

There was a leak in her kitchen coming from the risers. The risers were covered with asbestos which had to be removed prior to fixing the leak. After the asbestos was removed, the plumber fixed the leak and then the holes and wall had to be plastered and painted.

Plaintiff had requested that the foyer and living room could be painted as well. While the repairs were done plaintiff was relocated to another apartment. She did, however, return to her apartment to move things for the painting. While packing books she turned around and her foot got stuck in the in the plastic sheeting on the floor and she fell sustaining her injuries.

The defendants include the asbestos removal company, the air testing company, the plumbing company, painting company with an office in the defendant managing agent's office and the owner of the building.

Defendants claim the plaintiff cannot establish what caused her to fall and that if she could establish that there was a dangerous condition, she could not prove notice of such condition. Each defendant claims that they were not directly responsible for the accident.

In denying summary judgment for any of the parties, the Supreme Court held:

"Here the defendants have established that there was neither actual nor constructive notice. Plaintiff testifies that she traversed the same path safely for twenty minutes before her fall, and there is no evidence of complaints regarding the plastic sheeting. However, defendants have failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they did not cause of [sic] create the alleged defect. Plaintiff has represented facts from which a jury may reasonably infer that defendants were negligent in failing to properly secure the plastic covering to the floor or wall, thereby allowing it to bunch up and create a tripping hazard."

As to the conflicting testimony of each of the defendants, the issue of credibility is for a jury to determine.

Stanton v. DBD Services, Inc., NYLJ, 1/17/12