| Teplin v Bonwit Inn |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05853 [64 AD3d 642] |
| July 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carol Teplin et al., Appellants, v Bonwit Inn et al.,Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Burns, Russo, Tamigi & Reardon, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (James O'Hare and John Pieret ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), datedApril 1, 2008, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Carol Teplin allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell at thedefendant restaurant Bonwit Inn. In order to prevail in a trip-and-fall case, the "plaintiff mustdemonstrate that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defectivecondition that caused the fall, or created that condition" (Brown v Outback Steakhouse, 39 AD3d 450, 450 [2007]; seePrice v EQK Green Acres, 275 AD2d 737 [2000]; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226AD2d 590 [1996]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment asa matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive noticeof the allegedly defective condition (seeStarling v Suffolk County Water Auth., 63 AD3d 822 [2009]). In opposition, theplaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (id.; see Sanchez v Barnes & Noble, Inc., 59 AD3d 699, 699-700[2009]; Gilliam v White Castle, 8AD3d 428 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light ofour determination. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.