United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION & ORDER
L. CARTER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Harriet Dallis brings this diversity tort action to recover
monetary damages for personal injuries she sustained on a
slip and fall while she was a guest at the Hilton Hotel
Midtown. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: negligence
and gross negligence. Defendants, Hilton Worldwide Holdings,
Inc., Hilton Management, LLC, Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Park
Hotels And Resorts, Inc., Hilton Management, LLC, and HTL NY
Hilton, LLC (collectively, "Hilton") now seek
summary judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff s complaint in
its entirety. For the reasons stated below, Defendants'
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
following facts are taken from the record, including
Defendants' Rule 56.
and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.' On January
23, 2016, Dallis was a guest at the Hilton Hotel Midtown
("Hilton Hotel") in Room 3504 located at 1335
Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York. Defs. 56.1 Stmt.
¶ 7. There was snow falling on that day as a result of
Winter Storm Jonas. Dallis left the Hilton at approximately
10:00 am and returned to her room "between 3:00 and 3:30
pm." Dallis Dep. Tr. 66:9-12. At neither time, did she
not notice any puddles or any other moisture in the elevator
lobby area. Id. 65:5-17. Around an hour later,
Dallis left her room at approximately 4:30 pm and took the
elevator down. Id. 69:9-13. GinaValenti, an employee
of Dallis's, accompanied her in the elevator.
Id. 73:5-7; Valenti Aff ¶ 7.
the elevator, Dallis slipped and fell in the elevator lobby
or bank. Dallis Dep. Tr. 69:6-11; 77:8-78:6; see
also Guest Accident Report (Raicus Decl. Ex. U). Dallis
filled out a form entitled Guest Accident Report, where she
"I got off the elevator and walking away from the
elevator. I stepped (unbeknownst to me) in a puddle of water,
my feet went out from under me. I fell to the ground then
slipped and slid into the edge of the opposite elevator
frame, nose first."
did not notice water on the floor of the elevator lobby and
did not look back to see what caused her to slip. Dallis Dep.
is a disputed issue of fact about whether there was water on
the elevator lobby floor. See PL 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.
Valenti witnessed the accident. Defs. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14.
She observed that there was water in many areas on the
elevator bank's floor, including where Dallis slipped.
Valenti Aff. ¶ 10. Valenti also told Dallis that she
slipped in water. Dallis Dep. Tr. 82:2-9. However, Winston
Mattias, a Hilton Security Officer who responded to the
accident location and inspected the floor, stated that there
was no moisture, liquids, or anything on the floor. Mattias
Dep. Tr. 28:4-7; 29:5-11.
to the incident, Pedro Rosario, who worked as a housekeeper
in the lobby at the hotel on the day of the accident (Defs.
56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11), began his shift at 4:00 pm. Rosario
Dep. Tr. 15:12-20; 24:11-15; 36:10-11. Rosario started
mopping the floors and would check the floors of the elevator
lobby every 20 minutes or so. Id. 25:16-23;
36:16-25. After coming from the bathroom, Rosario observed
Dallis, post slip and fall, bleeding from the nose and
speaking with security in front of the elevators.
Id. 27:20-28:17. Rosario mopped the wet footprints
in the elevator lobby area. Id. 29:9-25.
to the Assistant Director of Housekeeping at the hotel at the
time of the incident, Wayne Durant, the elevator lobby where
the slip and fall occurred was constantly inspected and
mopped during repetitive cleaning cycles to prevent the
accumulation of water on the floor surface. Durant Aff.
¶ 16. Moreover, there was no slip and fall accidents or
complaints about water on the floor prior to the accident.
Id. During inclement weather, and specifically on
January 23, 2016, the Hilton Hotel implements enhanced
maintenance and safety protocol including the placement of
mats at all hotel entrances and the placement of caution
signs in the lobby and elevator lobby entrances, but not in
the elevator lobby. See Durant Aff. ¶¶
10-12; see also Rosario Dep. Tr. 21:7-23; 25:21-24
(noting additional personnel working for maintenance on that
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is proper where admissible
evidence in the form of affidavits, deposition transcripts,
or other documentation demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, and one party's entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law. See Viola v. Philips Med.
Sys. of N. Am.,42 F.3d 712, 716 (2d Cir. 1994). There
is no issue of material fact where the facts are irrelevant
to the disposition of the matter. Chartis SegurosMexico, S.A. de C. V. v. ELI Rail & Rigging,
LLC,967 F.Supp.2d 756, 761 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). In deciding
a summary judgment motion, the Court must construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. Niagara
Mohawk Power Corp. v. Jones Chemical Inc.,315 F.3d 171,
175 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). An issue of material
fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "[I]n
cases where the nonmovant will bear the ultimate burden of
proof at trial on an issue, ...