Mercer v. City of New York

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 88 N.Y.2d 955, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159, 670 N.E.2d 443, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 1528

Decision Date: 7/9/1996

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Mercer v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 955, 647 N.Y.S.2d 159, 670 N.E.2d 443, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 1528 (1996)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1996

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 62 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.56

S.D.N.Y.3

E.D.N.Y1

N.Y. App. Term1

Most recently cited by10

2025Gomez v. Target Corporation E.D.N.Y
2025Barrow v. State of New York
2024Falcon v. State of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2023Armenta v. AAC Cross County Mall, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2021Roque v. State of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2021Benny v. Concord Partners 46th St. LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2020Puello v. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, LLC S.D.N.Y.
2020Benny v. Concord Partners 46th St. LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2016Lovell v. Thompson N.Y. App. Div.
2015Ceron v. Yeshiva University N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 2 casesshowing 1

Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

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

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Rosenthal & Druyan, Bronx (Alan Jay Binger of counsel), for appellants.
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Deborah R. Douglas and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

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 plaintiffs 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.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.