| Alston v Starrett City Assoc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03048 [72 AD3d 711] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Helen Alston, Respondent, v Starrett City Associates et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Lawrence Perry Biondi, White Plains, N.Y. (Richard Mandel of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated May 1, 2009, which denied their motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiff's cross motion forleave to amend her bill of particulars.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burdenof making a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition on which the plaintiffslipped, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn.,Inc., 57 AD3d 598 [2008]; Soto-Lopez v Board of Mgrs. of Crescent Tower Condominium, 44AD3d 846 [2007]; Marshall vJeffrey Mgt. Corp., 35 AD3d 399, 400 [2006]). Here, the defendants failed to make aprima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of the puddle upon which the plaintiffallegedly slipped and fell, as they offered no evidence to establish when the staircase upon whichthe plaintiff slipped was last inspected or cleaned relative to the time when the plaintiff fell(see Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d at 598-599; Soto-Lopez vBoard of Mgrs. of Crescent Tower Condominium, 44 AD3d at 847; Marshall v JeffreyMgt. Corp., 35 AD3d at 400).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Miller andChambers, JJ., concur.