| Travers v Charles H. Greenthal Mgt. Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07401 [66 AD3d 768] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Eric Travers, Appellant, v Charles H. GreenthalManagement Corp. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Patrick J. Lawless ofcounsel), for respondents.
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, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), datedMarch 28, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of thedefendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. To hold alandlord liable for a hazardous condition upon its property, a plaintiff must show that thelandlord either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Jackson v City of New York, 55AD3d 546, 547 [2008]; Plakstis vLighthouse, LLC, 37 AD3d 573, 573-574 [2007]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawby demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of an allegedtoxic mold condition in the plaintiff's apartment (see Litwack v Plaza Realty Invs., Inc., 11 NY3d 820, 821-822[2008]; Beck v J.J.A. Holding Corp.,12 AD3d 238, 239-240 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issueof fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.