| Love v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02069 [82 AD3d 588] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Sheila Love, Appellant, v New York City HousingAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Cullen and Dykman LLP, Brooklyn (Joseph Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered February 5, 2010, which,in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on a wetsubstance as she descended an interior stairwell in defendant's building, granted defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law byestablishing that it did not have notice of the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to fall.Defendant's caretaker testified that she followed the janitorial schedule pursuant to which shewould have swept all the staircases in the morning, mopped the stairs any time she encountered awet condition and informed the supervisor of any complaints she would receive.
Plaintiff's opposition does not raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence fails to demonstrate aspecific recurring dangerous condition routinely left unaddressed by defendant, as opposed to amere "general awareness" of such a condition, for which defendant is not liable (seePiacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]; Rodriguez v 520 Audubon Assoc., 71AD3d 417 [2010]). Plaintiff's assertion that defendant should have been required to patrol itsstaircases 24 hours a day is unavailing (see Berger v ISK Manhattan, Inc., 10 AD3d 510, 512-513 [2004]).
We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.