| Stecher v M & T Bank Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08061 [44 AD3d 930] |
| October 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| James Stecher et al., Respondents, v M & T BankCorporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (James W. Shuttleworth III of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant M & T BankCorporation appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated October 26, 2006, as denied that branch ofits cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst it.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the cross motion of the defendant M & T Bank Corporation which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.
The injured plaintiff James Stecher (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly sustained personalinjuries when he slipped and fell while traversing a grassy embankment located between an upperand lower parking lot on property owned by the defendant M & T Bank Corporation (hereinafterM & T). The plaintiff and his wife commenced the instant action against, among others, M & T.In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied that branch of M & T's cross motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Wereverse the order insofar as appealed from.
In support of its cross motion, M & T made a prima facie showing of its entitlement tosummary judgment by demonstrating that it met its duty as a property owner to "maintain. . . [its] [*2]property in a reasonably safe manner"(see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976], quoting Smith v Arbaugh's Rest.,Inc., 469 F2d 97, 100 [1972], cert denied 412 US 939 [1973]). In opposition thereto,the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' contention that M & T breachedits duty by failing to provide a safe means of access from the upper parking lot to the officebuilding located on the subject property is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court shouldhave granted that branch of M & T's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint insofar as asserted against it.
In light of our determination, we need not reach M & T's remaining contention. Rivera, J.P.,Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.