| Crapanzano v Balkon Realty Co. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09607 [68 AD3d 1042] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carolyn Crapanzano, Appellant, v Balkon Realty Co.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Marianne Arcieri and Brian McElhenny of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated July 3, 2008, which granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on liquid on an interior staircase of a building ownedby the defendant. She did not see any liquid on the staircase before she fell. After she fell, sheobserved that her clothing was wet and that there was liquid on one of the steps.
A defendant owner who moves for summary judgment in a "slip-and-fall" case has the initialburden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor hadactual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover andremedy it (see DeLeon v Westhab, Inc., 60 AD3d 888 [2009]; Sloane v CostcoWholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522 [2008]; Grant v Radamar Meat, 294 AD2d 398[2002]; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). Here, the defendantestablished its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it didnot create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (seeEdwards v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 48 AD3d 405 [2008]; Arrufat v City of NewYork, 45 AD3d 710 [2007]; Green v City of New York, 34 AD3d 528 [2006];Katz v Seminole Realty Corp., 10 AD3d 386 [2004]; Goldman v Waldbaum,Inc., 248 AD2d 436 [1998]). The assistant superintendent of the building inspected thestaircase on a regular basis, and he did not see any liquid on the staircase or receive anycomplaints about the condition of the staircase prior to the accident. In opposition, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson,Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 32179(U).]