| Shang Sook Min v ABM, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00251 [47 AD3d 699] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shang Sook Min, Appellant, v ABM, Inc., Respondent, etal., Defendant. |
—[*1] Jeffrey Samel, New York, N.Y. (David Samel of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated July 24,2006, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant ABM, Inc., which was forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
While working at certain premises leased by her employer, the plaintiff slipped in a puddle ofwater that had accumulated in a lobby area, and fell. The defendant ABM, Inc. (hereinafterABM), which had entered into a service contract with the plaintiff's employer, provided janitorialservices for the premises.
On its cross motion, ABM demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). ABM showed that thecontract that it entered into with the plaintiff's employer was not so comprehensive and exclusivethat it entirely displaced the plaintiff's employer's duty to safely maintain its premises (seeEspinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Palka v Servicemaster Mgt.Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 589 [1994]; Troise v New Water St. Corp., 11 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]). ABMalso demonstrated that it did not create the condition complained of, and that the plaintiff did notdetrimentally rely on the continued performance of its alleged contractual duties (see Espinalv Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]; Romeo v Ronald McDonald House, 25 AD3d 681 [2006]). Since,in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of [*2]fact(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324), the Supreme Court correctly grantedthat branch of ABM's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against it. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.