NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1688-17T2
VIRGINIA R. MACKENN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AGIOS HARALAMBOS CORP.,
(d/b/a) NEW MONMOUTH DINER,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
E.K. KONSTANTINIDIS, the estate
of E.K. KONSTANTINIDIS, EMANUEL
K. KONSTANTINIDIS, executor,
EMANUEL KONSTANTINIDIS, and
KORTHION CORP.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Argued October 24, 2018 – Decided October 31, 2018
Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-2461-16.
Ralph E. Polcari argued the cause for appellant (Drazin
and Warshaw, attorneys; Ralph E. Polcari, of counsel
and on the briefs).
Anthony T. Ling argued the cause for respondents
(Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby
LLP, attorneys; Anthony T. Ling, of counsel and on the
brief; Richard S. Ranieri, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Virginia R. MacKenn appeals from an October 27, 2017 order
dismissing her complaint on summary judgment. Our review of the order is de
novo, employing the Brill1 standard, the same test used by the trial court. Globe
Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016). After reviewing the record de
novo, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the motion judge in her
oral opinion issued on October 27, 2017. We add these brief comments.
Plaintiff claimed that, as she entered a diner, she fell on a raised or buckled
portion of a weather mat located in the diner's vestibule area. The motion judge
found that plaintiff produced no legally competent evidence as to how long the
allegedly buckled mat had been in that condition. As a result, there was no
evidence that defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous
condition of their property. Nor was there evidence that they violated a duty to
1
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
A-1688-17T2
2
inspect for dangerous conditions. See Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory
Warehouse Corp., 443 N.J. Super. 596, 602 (App. Div. 2016); Arroyo v. Durling
Realty, LLC, 433 N.J. Super. 238, 243 (App. Div. 2013). We agree with that
assessment.
In addition, the record includes a security video that shows the mat and
plaintiff's fall. Giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences, the mat
had a slightly raised area in the right-hand corner nearest to the door. However,
the video also clearly shows that plaintiff did not trip on the raised area of the
mat.
Affirmed.
A-1688-17T2
3