Reyna v. Target Corporation

Background

Nancy Reyna and Francisco Reyna brought claims for damages against Target Corporation after Nancy Reyna slipped and fell on clear liquid at a Target location in White Plains, New York. The incident occurred on December 2, 2018, in a hallway near the store entrance from the parking garage. Nancy testified that she did not see liquid before she fell, described it as a small clear puddle, and did not know how it got there or how long it had been on the floor.

Target moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no real dispute over an important fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Legal Standard

Under New York negligence law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty, violated that duty, and caused an injury. In a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff must also present evidence that the defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual notice or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice means the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough before the accident for the defendant’s employees to discover and correct it.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Nancy’s opposition argued constructive notice but did not argue that Target created the liquid condition or had actual notice of it. Because those arguments were not addressed in her opposition, the court deemed them abandoned.

The court then considered constructive notice. It found no triable issue—that is, no genuine factual dispute requiring a jury—as to whether the liquid was visible and apparent. Nancy did not see the liquid before falling, described it as clear, and saw no footprints or cart marks. The court found that the witness, Maricela Cisneros Munoz, observed wet spots in a different location, more than ten feet from where Nancy said she fell. The court also noted that Munoz described the spots as scattered and not easily noticeable, even assuming they were in the same location.

The court separately found that Nancy had not shown the liquid existed long enough for Target employees to discover and remove it. The record did not establish when the liquid appeared. The court stated that even assuming Munoz had observed the same condition, her observation occurred about 15 minutes before the accident, which the court found too short to establish constructive notice. The court also noted that Munoz’s deposition testimony conflicted with an affidavit in which she did not mention seeing liquid before the accident.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Target Corporation, terminate the motion at ECF No. 76, and close the case.