Perez v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2010
• Citation: 75 A.D.3d 629,906 N.Y.S.2d 299
• Parties: Yadira PEREZ, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

906 N.Y.S.2d 299
75 A.D.3d 629

Yadira PEREZ, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 27, 2010.

906 N.Y.S.2d 300

Kenneth J. Ready & Associates, Mineola, N.Y. (Steven T. Lane of counsel), for appellant.

Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Neil R. Finkston of counsel), for respondent.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., STEVEN W. FISHER, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

75 A.D.3d 629

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated January 22, 2009, as, upon reargument, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Shortly after midnight, while descending an interior stairwell in a building owned by the defendant, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped on a puddle of urine. In the plaintiff's ensuing personal injury action, the defendant moved for summary

75 A.D.3d 630

judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion but, upon reargument, granted it. We affirm.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence ( see Edwards v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 721, 895 N.Y.S.2d 723; Gregg v. Key Food Supermarket, 50 A.D.3d 1093, 858 N.Y.S.2d 220; Perlongo v. Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 409, 410, 818 N.Y.S.2d 158). A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a length of time sufficient to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774; Davis v. Rochdale Vil., Inc., 63 A.D.3d 870, 870-871, 882 N.Y.S.2d 194; Latalladi v. Peter Luger Steakhouse, 52 A.D.3d 475, 476, 859 N.Y.S.2d 698).

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony and an affidavit of Lynn Carter, the person assigned to clean the building. According to Carter, she had last inspected the stairwell at...