| Andrini v Navarra |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02089 [49 AD3d 575] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Esnidia Andrini, Respondent, v Frank Navarra et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Dell & Little, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Jennifer J. Bock of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 5, 2007, which denied their motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to prevail on their motion for summary judgment in this action involving a fall uponan allegedly defective stairway, the defendants were " 'required to establish as a matter of lawthat they maintained the property in question in a reasonably safe condition and that they neithercreated the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive noticethereof' " (see Mokszki v Pratt, 13AD3d 709, 710 [2004], quoting Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall, 289 AD2d 679,679 [2001]; Hyman v Queens County Bancorp, 307 AD2d 984, 986 [2003], affd3 NY3d 743 [2004]). To give rise to constructive notice, a defect must be visible andapparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendantto discover and remedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d836 [1986]). Only after the defendants have satisfied their threshold burden will the courtexamine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ.Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Soto-Lopez v Board of Mgrs. of Crescent Tower Condominium, 44AD3d 846 [2007]).
Here, the defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing of[*2]entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, theSupreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Carni andLeventhal, JJ., concur.