| Soto-Lopez v Board of Mgrs. of Crescent TowerCondominium |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07836 [44 AD3d 846] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Maria Soto-Lopez, Appellant, v Board of Managers ofCrescent Tower Condominium et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Weiner, Millo & Morgan, LLC, New York, N.Y. (John P. Bonanno and Alyssa A. Mendys ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated June 1, 2006, as amended by an order ofthe same court dated June 29, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order dated June 1, 2006, as amended by the order dated June 29, 2006, isreversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintis denied.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a greasy substance on the surface of a staircase inthe common area of a condominium which was strewn with debris. The plaintiff commenced theinstant action against the owner of the common area and the managing agent of thecondominium. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. We reverse.
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 Seabury v County of Dutchess, 38AD3d 752 [2007]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 [*2]AD3d 436 [2005]). Only after the defendant has satisfied thisthreshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition (seeWinegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12AD3d 409 [2004]).
The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing ofentitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied theirmotion. The defendants offered no evidence to establish when the area in question was lastinspected or cleaned on the day of the accident, and their submissions reveal the existence of atriable issue of fact as to whether they had constructive notice of the alleged greasy substancewhich caused the plaintiff to fall (seeAmes v Waldbaum, Inc., 34 AD3d 607 [2006]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12AD3d 409 [2004]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.