| Saggio v Town of Islip |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08552 [78 AD3d 922] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Richard Saggio et al., Appellants, v Town of Islip et al.,Defendants, and Long Island Business and Technology Center,Respondent. |
—[*1] Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein and David D. Hess of counsel),for respondent.
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, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.),dated June 29, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Long Island Businessand Technology Center which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The injured plaintiff allegedly fell after his right shoelace became caught in a wire protrudingfrom the bottom of a fence which was owned by the defendant Long Island Business andTechnology Center (hereinafter the defendant). The fence was located on a grassy ground andabutted crowded ball fields that the injured plaintiff was attempting to exit. The defendantestablished its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not createor have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect which caused the injured plaintiff tofall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Green v City of New York, 34 AD3d528, 529 [2006]; Crawford v AMFBowling Ctrs., Inc., 18 AD3d 798, 799 [2005]; Paolucci v First Natl. SupermarketCo., 178 AD2d 636 [1991]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austinand Sgroi, JJ., concur.