| Espada v City of New York |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05724 [74 AD3d 1276] |
| June 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Luis Espada, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
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 (Vaughan, J.), dated June 3,2009, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgmentdismissing the causes of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 200 andcommon-law negligence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law byestablishing that they relinquished control of the leased premises where the plaintiff wasallegedly injured, and that they were not obligated under the terms of the lease to maintain orrepair the premises leased by the plaintiff's employer (see Stein v Harriet Mgt., LLC, 51AD3d 1007 [2008]; Robinson v M. Parisi & Son Constr. Co., Inc., 51 AD3d 653 [2008]).Accordingly, to avoid summary judgment in this dispute, the plaintiff was obligated to raise atriable issue of fact as to whether the defendants retained a right to reenter the leased premisesand whether the alleged defect which caused his injury violated a specific statutory safetyprovision (see Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 566-567[1987]; Landy v 6902 13th Ave. Realty Corp., 70 AD3d 649, 650 [2010]). The plaintifffailed to raise such a triable issue of fact (see Greco v Starbucks Coffee Co., 58 AD3d681 [2009]; Stein v Harriet Mgt., LLC, 51 AD3d at 1008; O'Connell v L.B. RealtyCo., 50 AD3d 752 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch ofthe defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action torecover damages for violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants' motion was not premature, as theplaintiff failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevantevidence or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the defendants'knowledge and control (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Hill v Ackall, 71 AD3d 829 [2010];Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belenand Chambers, JJ., concur.