| Prusak v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06851 [43 AD3d 1022] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Andrej Prusak, Appellant, v New York City HousingAuthority, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Xaren Corporation, Third-PartyDefendant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joseph C. Fegan and Joseph Miller of counsel),for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent. Gartner & Bloom, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Christine M. Messina and Susan Mahon ofcounsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much ofan order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 7, 2006, as granted themotion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, in which the third-party defendant joined, forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burdenof making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual orconstructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Rodriguez v White Plains Pub. Schools,35 AD3d 704 [2006]; Perlongov Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]). Here, the defendantthird-party plaintiff satisfied this burden (see Calo v Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488 [2007]; Nisimov v Ocean Props., LLC, 10AD3d 640 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeAlvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Muniz v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 628 [2007]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the [*2]motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ.,concur.