| Walls v City of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01744 [48 AD3d 792] |
| February 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Denee Walls, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Respondents, and New York City School Construction Authority,Appellant. |
—[*1] Eaton & Torrenzano, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jay Torrenzano of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and CherylPayer of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City SchoolConstruction Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 2, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by therespondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion of the defendant NewYork City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint andall cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of slipping on debris on the stairs to themain entrance of P.S. 194, where her son attended school. The Supreme Court denied the motionof the defendant New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter NYCSCA) forsummary judgment, finding there were triable issues of fact.
The NYCSCA made a prima facie showing that it did not create the allegedly [*2]dangerous condition, that it had neither actual nor constructivenotice of the debris upon which the plaintiff allegedly fell, and that under Espinal v MelvilleSnow Contrs. (98 NY2d 136 [2002]), it owed no duty to the plaintiff, who was not athird-party beneficiary to any alleged contract between it and the Board of Education of the Cityof New York. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact with respect to notice(see Brown v Outback Steakhouse, 39 AD3d 450 [2007]), and as to whether anynegligence of NYCSCA created the alleged dangerous condition (see Espinal v MelvilleSnow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ.,concur.