Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 03 January 2013
• Parties: Luz RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

102 A.D.3d 407

959 N.Y.S.2d 127

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00013

Luz RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.

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

Jan. 3, 2013.

Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C., New York (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 25, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from a slip-and-fall on a wet substance in a stairwell in defendant's building, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition ( Smith v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 50 A.D.3d 499, 500, 856 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1st Dept. 2008] ). The caretaker who cleaned the building on the day before the early-morning accident testified that she inspected the subject stairs twice every morning and once every afternoon, and promptly mopped any urine or other spills she found during her inspections. This testimony was corroborated by her supervisor's testimony and the janitorial schedule ( see Love v. New York City Hous. Auth., 82 A.D.3d 588, 919 N.Y.S.2d 149 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence plaintiff submitted fails to demonstrate a recurring dangerous condition routinely left unremedied by defendant, as opposed to a mere general awareness of such a condition, for which defendant is not liable ( see Raposo v. New York City Hous. Auth., 94 A.D.3d 533, 534, 942 N.Y.S.2d 337 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Defendant is not “required to patrol its staircases 24 hours a day” ( Love, 82 A.D.3d at 588, 919 N.Y.S.2d 149).