| Crawford v Jefferson House Assoc., LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10114 [57 AD3d 822] |
| December 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Richard Crawford, Appellant, v Jefferson House Associates, LLC, et al.,Respondents. Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein and David D. Hess of counsel), forrespondents. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 4, 2007, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell while walking down the stairway of the subject apartmentbuilding. The surface of the concrete and steel stairway was painted, and the plaintiff reported seeing asmall amount of coffee spilled on the step on which he slipped. The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that they hadno actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Gordon v AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; Applegate v Long Is. Power Auth., 53 AD3d 515, 516 [2008]; Palermo v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn,N.Y., 20 AD3d 516, 517 [2005]), nor had their affirmative acts created the dangerouscondition (see German v Campbell Inn,37 AD3d 405 [2007]; Rodriguez v Kimco Centereach 605, 298 AD2d 571,571-572 [2002]; Lindeman v Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 AD2d 392 [2000]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see German v Campbell Inn, 37 AD3d405 [2007]; Palermo v Roman Catholic Diocese, 20 AD3d at 517; Rodriguez vKimco Centereach 605, 298 AD2d at 571-572; Lindeman v Vecchione Constr. Corp.,275 AD2d 392 [2000]). The expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion merely allegedthat the application of paint to the stairway made it inherently slippery, and the stairway failed to meet"good and accepted" engineering safety practices. These conclusory allegations were insufficient to raisea triable issue of fact (see German vCampbell Inn, 37 AD3d 405 [2007]; Rodriguez v Kimco Centereach 605, 298AD2d at 571-572; see also Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 971-972 [1994]; Lindemanv Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 AD2d 392 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before us. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Belen, JJ., concur. |