If you slipped or tripped in a New York building and the property owner says they cleaned or mopped the area regularly, you may wonder: Can I still hold them responsible?
Yes. In fact, under New York law, a property owner cannot escape liability by merely mopping up a dangerous condition that they know happens over and over again—without fixing the underlying cause.
At MJP Injury Law, attorney Michael Prisco represents injury victims throughout New York City and Long Island. We know the law. And we know how to defeat common defense tactics—especially when defendants try to hide behind vague claims of routine maintenance.
⚖️ The Legal Standard: Constructive Notice and Recurring Conditions
To hold a property owner or manager liable in a slip and fall or trip and fall case, you need to show they either:
- Created the hazard,
- Had actual knowledge of it, or
- Had constructive notice—meaning the condition was visible, apparent, and existed long enough for them to find and fix it.
But there’s another path: recurring condition theory.
If the dangerous condition happens repeatedly, and the defendant knows about it but doesn’t fix the root cause, they are on notice—even if they clean it up each time.
As the First Department ruled in Graham v. New York City Hous. Auth., 229 A.D.3d 605 (2d Dept. 2024), once a defendant has actual knowledge of a recurring hazard, they are charged with constructive notice of every recurrence.
🧼 Routine Cleaning Is Not a Defense
Defendants often try to argue that they shouldn’t be held liable because they mopped the floor or cleaned the area as part of general maintenance. But courts have rejected that argument when the cleaning is superficial and doesn’t fix the underlying issue.
In Graham, the plaintiff slipped in a hallway where water regularly seeped in from a terrace during heavy rain. NYCHA claimed it routinely mopped the water. But the court ruled that routine mopping wasn’t enough. Since the water leak kept happening and the root cause was never fixed, NYCHA was liable.
📚 Other Cases Supporting This Rule
- In Osario v. NY Sandy4 NBP19 LLC, 220 A.D.3d 541 (1st Dept. 2023), the plaintiff had repeatedly complained about a leaking bathroom ceiling. Even though the landlord made small repairs, the core problem was never addressed. The court ruled that intermittent “fixes” weren’t enough—they were on notice.
- In Toussaint v. Ocean Ave. Apt. Assoc., LLC, 144 A.D.3d 664 (2d Dept. 2016), the landlord had patched a leaky ceiling four or five times, but never fixed the underlying leak. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff.
- In Dunna v. 6-8 St. Nicholas Realty Corp., 204 A.D.3d 466 (2d Dept. 2022), the court rejected the defense’s claim that they “fixed” the leak, where there was no documentation or repair record submitted in opposition.
- In Quinones v. Starret City, Inc., 163 A.D.3d 1020 (2d Dept. 2018), the court held that reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient unless tied to specific inspections or actions taken before the incident.
🧠 Key Principle: You Can’t “Clean Away” Liability
If a defendant knows water, ice, or another hazard is regularly present in a specific area—and they fail to fix the problem—they cannot avoid responsibility by simply mopping it up when it happens.
To quote the court in Graham, a defendant “cannot escape liability by claiming it routinely addressed the known hazard as part of its regular maintenance.”
This is especially true when the defendant fails to submit any evidence that the area was cleaned or inspected before the fall. Testimony about what employees are supposed to do is not enough.
🏆 How MJP Injury Law Proves Recurring Condition Cases
Attorney Michael Prisco has successfully held landlords, businesses, and government entities accountable by:
- Using witness and employee testimony to show long-standing problems,
- Subpoenaing maintenance logs and inspection records,
- Demonstrating the failure to repair the source of the hazard, not just the symptoms.
In one recent case, we showed that despite years of water leaks into a hallway, the building owner never fixed the terrace or doorway that allowed water in. The court found this to be constructive notice via a recurring condition—and ruled in our client’s favor.
📞 Injured in a Slip or Trip and Fall? Don’t Let Them Mop the Truth Away.
If a building owner or business says they cleaned the floor but you know the problem keeps happening, you may still have a strong case. New York law protects you when property owners ignore recurring dangers.
At MJP Injury Law, we represent clients in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and across Long Island. Call today for a free consultation.
📞 (718) 550-7019
🌐Contract Us Online
✉️ [email protected]