| Alexander v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08547 [89 AD3d 969] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ahkimm Alexander, Respondent, v New York City HousingAuthority, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City HousingAuthority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated October 7,2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured while exiting a building owned by the defendant New YorkCity Housing Authority (hereinafter the defendant). While the plaintiff was exiting the building through amechanized metal door, the door allegedly struck an adjacent wall and swung quickly back towardshim, causing the exposed tip of a screw which had come loose from a metal frame on the door to strikehim.
In a premises liability case, the defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden ofestablishing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of itsexistence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v American Museumof Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598 [2008]; Gerbi v Tri-Mac Enters. of Stony Brook,Inc., 34 AD3d 732 [2006]). According to the affidavit of the defendant's building caretaker,she conducted a daily inspection of the rear exit door, and indicated what she would do if she detectedany problem with regard to the door. This failed to demonstrate what the caretaker observed regardingthe condition of the door prior to the plaintiff's accident. Thus, the defendant failed to meet its primafacie burden of showing that it lacked constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused theplaintiff's injuries (see Bridges v WyandanchCommunity Dev. Corp., 66 AD3d 938, 940 [2009]; Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598 [2008]; Gerbi v Tri-Mac Enters. of Stony Brook,Inc., 34 AD3d 732 [2006]).
Since the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden, the Supreme Court correctly denied thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted [*2]against it (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986];McPhaul v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co.,81 AD3d 609 [2011]; Gerbi v Tri-MacEnters. of Stony Brook, Inc., 34 AD3d 732 [2006]; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]).Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.