The Appellate Division held the following: “[the defendants established] that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any hazardous condition...the defendants’ custodian testified at a deposition that he inspected the gate twice a week, never observed any defects in the gate, and never received any complaints about the gate prior to the accident. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. [Additionally,] contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable here. The evidence did not show that the defendants were in exclusive control of the gate.”
Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.