| Verma v City of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04051 [62 AD3d 863] |
| May 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Rajat Verma, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow andSuzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent City of New York. Paganini, Gambeski, Cioci, Cusumano & Farole, Lake Success, N.Y. (John J. Kearney ofcounsel), for respondent Queens Borough Public Library.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), enteredJune 11, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Queens Borough PublicLibrary, and that branch of cross motion of the defendant City of New York, which were forsummary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an outdoor staircase of a branch of thedefendant Queens Borough Public Library while he was exiting the building. At the time of theaccident, the staircase was wet due to an earlier rainstorm.
On their motions, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaintinsofar as asserted against them, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as amatter of law by establishing that the accident did not occur as a result of a dangerous ordefective condition on the staircase, and that, in any event, they neither created nor had actual orconstructive notice of any alleged dangerous or defective condition on the staircase (see Morgan v City of New [*2]York, 59 AD3d 412 [2009]; Richardson v Campanelli,297 AD2d 794 [2002]; Sadowsky v 2175 Wantagh Ave. Corp., 281 AD2d 407[2001]; King v New York City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 354 [1999]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gentles v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 275 AD2d 388, 389 [2000]). The findings of the plaintiff's expert wereconclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Palermo v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 20 AD3d516 [2005]; Rodriguez v Kimco Centereach 605, 298 AD2d 571 [2002]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgmentdismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P., Miller,Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.