| Sut v City Cinemas Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01952 [71 AD3d 759] |
| March 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dominika Sut, Appellant, v City Cinemas Corporation etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 12, 2009, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion forsummary judgment is denied.
A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burdenof making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor hadactual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover andremedy it (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837[1986]; Gam v Pomona Professional Condominium, 291 AD2d 372 [2002]; DeVivov Sparago, 287 AD2d 535 [2001]). Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, thattheir snow removal activities did not create or exacerbate the icy condition which allegedlycaused the plaintiff to fall (see Robles vCity of New York, 56 AD3d 647, 648 [2008]; Artis v City of New York, 24 AD3d 477, 478 [2005]). Since thedefendants failed to satisfy their burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency ofthe plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d851 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.