| Ferguson v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07309 [77 AD3d 706] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tekevia Ferguson, Appellant, v New York City HousingAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Neil R. Finkston of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated August 18, 2008, which granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On February 28, 2005, the plaintiff sustained a burn injury when she apparently lost consciousnesswhile sitting on the toilet at her friend's apartment, and her forehead made contact with a steam riserpipe. The defendant landlord established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, based, inter alia,upon proof that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-809, requiring insulation ofaccessible piping exceeding 165 degrees Fahrenheit, did not apply to the defendant's building becausethe building was constructed before that provision went in effect, and proof that the pipe wasmaintained in accordance with acceptable standards.
In response to the defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it was notforeseeable that the plaintiff would come into contact with the steam riser pipe for a sustained period oftime (see Dugue v 1818 Newkirk Mgt. Corp., 301 AD2d 560, 561 [2003]; Sanchez vBiordi, 259 AD2d 434 [1999]). Further, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as towhether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition violating thedefendant's common-law duty to maintain a safe premises (see Lam v Neptune Assoc., 203AD2d 334, 335 [1994]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.