| Warfield v Shan Assoc. of Syosset, LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00247 [69 AD3d 708] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Geraldine H. Warfield et al., Appellants, v ShanAssociates of Syosset, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (A.G. Chancellor III of counsel), forrespondents.
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, Nassau County (Davis, J.), enteredJuly 30, 2008, as, upon reargument, adhered to so much of its original determination, in an orderdated April 25, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Shan Associates ofSyosset, LLC, and Rosemary Glover which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and uponreargument, so much of the order dated April 25, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion ofthe defendants Shan Associates of Syosset, LLC, and Rosemary Glover which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is vacated, and that branch ofthe motion is denied.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs (see Wilson v Rojas, 63 AD3d1048 [2009]), the defendants Shan Associates of Syosset, LLC (hereinafter Shan), andRosemary Glover failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon the issue of whether or not they had constructive or actual notice of the alleged slipperycondition (see Taylor v Rochdale Vil.,Inc., 60 AD3d 930 [2009]). Additionally, there are issues of fact as to whether thelighting in the parking lot where the accident occurred was inadequate and, if so, whether it wasa proximate cause of the accident (seeGestetner v Teitelbaum, 52 AD3d 778 [2008]). Thus, upon reargument, the motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Shan and Glover shouldhave been denied by the Supreme Court. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.