| Palacios v City of New York |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00203 [80 AD3d 588] |
| January 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jayden Palacios et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated November 24, 2009, which granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On March 20, 2006, the infant plaintiff was burned when he fell from a bed at his grandmother'sapartment, and his left leg made contact with a steam riser pipe. The apartment was owned by thedefendants. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their primafacie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based, inter alia, upon proof that Administrative Codeof the City of New York § 27-809, requiring insulation of accessible piping exceeding 165degrees Fahrenheit, did not apply to the subject building because it was constructed before the effectivedate of that provision (see Isaacs v West 34thApts. Corp., 36 AD3d 414, 416 [2007]), and proof that the pipe was maintained inaccordance with acceptable standards (seeFerguson v New York City Hous. Auth., 77 AD3d 706 [2010]; Bruno v New York City Hous. Auth., 21AD3d 760, 761 [2005]; Dugue v 1818 Newkirk Mgt. Corp., 301 AD2d 560, 561[2003]; Sanchez v Biordi, 259 AD2d 434, 435 [1999]).
In response to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue offact. The plaintiffs failed to provide an expert affidavit in opposition to the affidavits of the defendants'experts (see Bruno v New York City Hous. Auth., 21 AD3d at 761), and they did not supplyany competent evidence establishing the temperature of the steam riser pipe against which the infantplaintiff fell (see O'Brien v Ovington Hall, 40 AD2d 874 [1972], affd 33 NY2d 866[1973]). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants hadactual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition violating their common-law duty to maintain asafe premises (see Ferguson v New YorkCity Hous. Auth., 77 AD3d 706 [2010]; Lam v Neptune Assoc., 203 AD2d 334,335 [1994]; cf. Hughes v ConcourseResidence Corp., 62 AD3d 463, 464 [2009]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.[*2]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal andHall, JJ., concur.