| Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07186 [99 AD3d 613] |
| October 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Arlene Williams, Appellant, v New York City HousingAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel),for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered July 6, 2011, whichgranted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslyreversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell while descending a stairway in her building andtrying to avoid a puddle of urine covering some of the steps. Defendant established prima faciethat, although it was aware of an ongoing problem of loiterers in the building's stairwell leavingdebris, urine and feces, it lacked actual notice of the specific condition, and that it had in place anadequate janitorial schedule for the cleaning of the stairwells. However, since defendant failed topresent competent evidence that the janitorial schedule was followed on the day of the accident,it did not show that it lacked constructive notice of the complained-of condition (see Rodriguez v 705-7 E. 179th St. Hous.Dev. Fund Corp., 79 AD3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2010]; Ross v Betty G. Reader RevocableTrust, 86 AD3d 419, 421 [1st Dept 2011]; Aviles v 2333 1st Corp., 66 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2009]; compare Pfeuffer v New York City Hous.Auth., 93 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2012]). The affidavit by the supervisor of caretakersconcerning cleaning in the building on the day of the accident was insufficient because it wasinconsistent with the supervisor's own testimony that he did not recall whether or not he wasresponsible for the subject building at the time of the accident (see Arias v Skyline Windows, Inc., 89AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2011]). In view of defendant's failure to tender sufficient evidence toeliminate any material issues of fact from the case, we need not address the sufficiency ofplaintiff's papers in opposition to the motion (see [*2]Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853[1985]).
We reject defendant's argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [PriorCase History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31558(U).]