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

169 A.D.3d 947

94 N.Y.S.3d 318

Juan RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,

v.NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

2018–00054

Index No. 513371/15

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

Argued—October 29, 2018

February 20, 2019

Greenberg Law P.C., New York, N.Y. (Raquel J. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Miriam Skolnik of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated October 26, 2017. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by him when he slipped and fell while descending a staircase in a building owned by the defendant, New York City Housing Authority. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he was caused to slip, stumble, and fall as a result of a "wet, slick, unattended, and slippery dirty substance on the treads of the stairs in the stairwell," and that the defendant was negligent in, among other things, the maintenance of the subject premises. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff did not know what caused him to fall and that the defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition on the stairs. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the ground that the defendant did not have notice of any dangerous condition with respect to the stairwell. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm, albeit on a ground different from that relied upon by the court.

We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it lacked notice of any defective condition. "In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence" ( Parietti v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 1136, 1137, 61 N.Y.S.3d 523, 83 N.E.3d 853 ; see Blair v. Loduca, 164 A.D.3d 637, 638, 83 N.Y.S.3d 132 ; Zerilli v. Western Beef Retail, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 681, 681, 898 N.Y.S.2d 614 ). To meet its prima facie burden on the issue of constructive notice, the moving defendant must offer evidence as to when the area at issue was last cleaned or inspected before the accident (see Quinones v. Starret City, Inc., 163 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, 81 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; Hanney v. White Plains Galleria, LP, 157 A.D.3d 660, 661, 68 N.Y.S.3d 522 ; Rong Wen Wu v. Arniotes, 149 A.D.3d 786, 787, 50 N.Y.S.3d 563 ). "Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question" ( Rong Wen Wu v. Arniotes, 149 A.D.3d at 787, 50 N.Y.S.3d 563 ; see Quinones v. Starret City, Inc., 163 A.D.3d at 1021–1022, 81 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; Eksarko v. Associated Supermarket, 155 A.D.3d 826, 827, 63 N.Y.S.3d 723 ; Mahoney v. AMC Entertainment, Inc., 103 A.D.3d 855, 856, 959 N.Y.S.2d 752 ).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. While the deposition testimony of the premises' caretaker demonstrated that the caretaker inspected and cleaned the subject stairwell on a regular basis, the defendant failed to present evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred (see Quinones v. Starret City, Inc., 163 A.D.3d at 1022, 81 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; Eksarko v. Associated Supermarket, 155 A.D.3d at 828, 63 N.Y.S.3d 723 ; Perez v. Wendell Terrace Owners Corp., 150 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 54 N.Y.S.3d 655 ). Thus, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it established that it did not have notice of the alleged hazardous condition.

A defendant in a slip-and-fall case may also establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation (see Andersen v. El Triunfo Laundromat Corp., 151 A.D.3d 921, 54 N.Y.S.3d 166 ; Belton v. Gemstone HQ Realty Assoc., LLC, 145 A.D.3d 840, 841, 43 N.Y.S.3d 499 ; Hahn v. Go Go Bus Tours, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 748, 749, 40 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; Korn v. Parkside Harbors Apts., LLC, 134 A.D.3d 769, 769, 22 N.Y.S.3d 99 ). Here, the...