Marquez v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

── Marquez v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP ── Case No.: 25-1122 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 25-1122 Marquez v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. 4 5 Present: 6 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 7 Chief Judge, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges, 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ARACELIS MARQUEZ, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 v. 25-1122 18 19 WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, 20 21 Defendant-Appellee. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 For Plaintiff-Appellant: MITCHELL DRANOW, HARMON, LINDER, & ROGOWSKY, 25 ESQS., Sea Cliff, NY. 26 27 For Defendant-Appellee: PATRICIA A. O’CONNOR, O’CONNOR & O’CONNOR, 28 ESQS., Northport, NY. 29 30 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 31 York (Lindsay, M.J.). 1 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 2 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED for further 3 proceedings. 4 Plaintiff-Appellant Aracelis Marquez (“Marquez”) appeals from a judgment of the United 5 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Lindsay, M.J.), entered on April 18, 6 2025, granting the motion of Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”) for 7 summary judgment. Marquez filed a personal injury suit against Walmart for injuries sustained 8 from a slip-and-fall. The district court granted summary judgment to Walmart, holding that 9 Marquez failed to provide evidence that Walmart’s actions resulted in the hazardous condition or 10 that the hazardous condition had existed long enough for Walmart employees to discover it and 11 clean it up. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history 12 of the case, and the issues on appeal. 13 * * * 14 Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows “there is no genuine dispute as to 15 any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 56(a). This Court “review[s] the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing 17 the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences 18 in its favor.” Aponte v. Perez, 75 F.4th 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Ashley v. City of New York, 19 992 F.3d 128, 136 (2d Cir. 2021)). 20 Under New York law, which applies in this diversity action, “a tort plaintiff seeking to 21 prove a defendant’s negligence must show: ‘(1) the existence of a duty on defendant’s part as to 22 plaintiff; (2) a breach of