| Azumally v 16 W. 19th LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09358 [79 AD3d 922] |
| December 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Cecilia Azumally et al., Respondents, v 16 West 19th LLC etal., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Drummond & Crawford, P.C., Queens Village, N.Y. (Stephen L. Drummond of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants 16 West 19th LLC, theestate of Sylvia Glaser, and Williams Real Estate Co., Inc., appeal from an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered December 9, 2009, which denied their motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion is granted.
The plaintiff Cecilia Azumally "stepped" with her right foot "into [a] waste paper basket" in aphotocopy room at her place of employment, skidded, and fell onto the floor, allegedly sustainingpersonal injuries. The plaintiffs alleged that the photocopy room was dimly lit and that the waste basketwas not in the place where it was usually situated. The appellants failed to establish, prima facie, thatthey were out-of-possession landlords with no duty to maintain the photocopy room which had beenleased to the plaintiffs' employer (see Lalicatav 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC, 63 AD3d 889 [2009]; Greis v Eckerd Corp., 54 AD3d 895[2008]; Lupo v Montauk Props., LLC,20 AD3d 398 [2005]; see also Scott v Long Is. Power Auth., 294 AD2d 348 [2002]).The appellants failed to submit a copy of the lease, and conflicting evidence was presented as towhether the appellants had a duty to maintain the leased premises.
Nevertheless, the appellants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that the waste basket at issue was readily observable with the reasonable use of one'ssenses and not inherently dangerous (seeNeiderbach v 7-Eleven, Inc., 56 AD3d 632 [2008]; Neville v 187 E. Main St., LLC, 33 AD3d 682 [2006]; Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd., 15 AD3d646 [2005]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1AD3d 48 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether thealleged poor lighting condition was a proximate cause of the accident (see Outlaw v Citibank, N.A., 35 AD3d564 [2006]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P., Fisher,Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.