leap, then, for the judge to infer that the water on the rug had accumulated since the last sweep of the area at 10 p.m. Cases to which the briefs have referred do not involve spills of water onto the floors of retail store premises. There are numerous decisions from other jurisdictions, however, on which such an adverse inference has been drawn. See, e.g., Newman v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 100 A.D.2d 538, 538-539 (N.Y. 1984) (“[a] reasonable inference could be drawn that the puddle was formed by a slowly dripping overflow of melting ice from the troughs located under the freezer case, and that such a process would take sufficient time to accumulate so that the defendant could be charged with constructive notice”); Taylor v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 Va. 64, 66-67 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Contrast Hill v. Allied Supermarkets, Inc.,
holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence recognizing that jury may infer from the evidence that defendants money came from drug sales holding it is reasonable to infer that flaked ice spilled from watermelon display causing puddle on which plaintiff slipped and fell holding that it is not