| Mikhaylo v Chechelnitskiy |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09375 [45 AD3d 821] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vasiliy Mikhaylo et al., Respondents, v YevgeniyChechelnitskiy et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Borrell & Riso, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (John Riso of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants YevgeniyChechelnitskiy and Zinaida Genkina appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 12, 2006, as denied thatbranch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action basedon common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted againstthem.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was forsummary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on common-law negligence andviolation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against them because they failed toestablish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing these causes ofaction (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Winegrad vNew York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]). In particular, they failed to establish that they lacked actual orconstructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff VasiliyMikhaylo's injury (see Keating v NanuetBd. of Educ., 40 AD3d 706, 708 [2007]). Because the appellants failed to meet theirprima facie burden, the sufficiency of the opposition papers need not be addressed (seeWinegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Crane,J.P., Lifson, Carni and Balkin, JJ., concur.