| Mayo v Cedar Manor Mut. Hous. Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04979 [96 AD3d 913] |
| June 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shirl Mayo, Appellant, v Cedar Manor Mutual HousingCorporation, Respondent. |
—[*1] Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), dated March 2, 2011, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the icy conditionalleged to have caused the plaintiff's fall (see Spinoccia v Fairfield Bellmore Ave., LLC, 95 AD3d 993 [2dDept 2012]; Christal v Ramapo CirqueHomeowners Assoc., 51 AD3d 846, 846-847 [2008]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's contentions asto when and how the patch of ice was formed were based on speculation and conjecture (seeSimmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972, 973-974 [1994]; Simon v PABR Assoc., LLC, 61 AD3d663, 664 [2009]; DeVito v HarrisonHouse Assoc., 41 AD3d 420, 421 [2007]; cf. San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111, 115[2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.