| Edwards v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01099 [48 AD3d 405] |
| February 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Donna Edwards, Appellant, v Port Authority of New Yorkand New Jersey et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Brown Gavalas & Fromm LLP, New York, N.Y. (David H. Fromm of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated September 18, 2006, which granted themotion of the defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Jetblue AirwaysCorporation, and the separate motion of the defendant Roma Cleaning, Inc., for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor in an airline terminal owned by thedefendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority), managedby the defendant Jetblue Airways Corporation (hereinafter Jet Blue), and maintained by thedefendant Roma Cleaning, Inc. (hereinafter Roma Cleaning). According to the plaintiff, she didnot see any water before the accident, but after she fell her clothing was wet and she observed apuddle of water on the floor. She subsequently commenced this action against the Port Authority,Jet Blue, and Roma Cleaning, alleging, inter alia, that they acted negligently by permitting thefloor to remain wet and slippery. The Port Authority and Jet Blue moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and Roma Cleaning separately movedfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The SupremeCourt granted both [*2]motions, finding that Roma Cleaning andJet Blue did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the wet floor, and that the PortAuthority was an out-of-possession landlord not liable for injuries sustained on the premises.
The deposition testimony submitted in support of the motions, indicating that the floors werecleaned and monitored regularly by Roma Cleaning and Jet Blue personnel, established, primafacie, that those defendants did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedhazard (see Grant v Radamar Meat, 294 AD2d 398 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact as to those two defendants. Moreover, there were no triableissues of fact raised with respect to the Port Authority. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the defendants' motions. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.