| Pastore v Western Beef, Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06668 [110 AD3d 860] |
| October 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nancy Pastore, Appellant, v Western Beef, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Albert W. Cornachio, P.C., Rye Brook, N.Y. (Christopher R. Block of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered March 19, 2012, whichgranted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden ofestablishing, prima facie, that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor hadactual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discoverand remedy it (see Petersel vGood Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern, N.Y., 99 AD3d 880, 880 [2012]; Johnson v Culinary Inst. ofAm., 95 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2012]; Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 75 AD3d 629, 630[2010]; Edwards v Great Atl. &Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721, 721 [2010]). "To meet its initial burden on theissue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to whenthe area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintifffell" (Birnbaum v New YorkRacing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598-599 [2008]; see Petersel v GoodSamaritan Hosp. of Suffern, N.Y., 99 AD3d at 880; Johnson v CulinaryInst. of Am., 95 AD3d at 1078; Schiano v Mijul, Inc., 79 AD3d 726, 726-727 [2010]; Farrell v Waldbaum's, Inc., 73AD3d 846, 847 [2010]; Ames v Waldbaum, Inc., 34 AD3d 607, 607 [2006]).
Here, in support of its motion, the defendant store owner demonstrated its primafacie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing thatit did not create the condition that caused the plaintiff to fall in its store or have noticethereof (see Ingram v Long Is.Coll. Hosp., 101 AD3d 814, 815 [2012]; Cerniglia v Loza Rest. Corp., 98 AD3d 933, 934 [2012];Knack v Red Lobster 286, N &D Rests., Inc., 98 AD3d 473, 473-474 [2012]; Pollina v Oakland's Rest., Inc.,95 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2012]; Cusack v Peter Luger, Inc., 77 AD3d 785, 786 [2010]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller,JJ., concur.