| Yuk Ping Cheng Chan v Young T. Lee & Son RealtyCorp. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07122 [110 AD3d 637] |
| October 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Yuk Ping Cheng Chan, Respondent, v Young T.Lee & Son Realty Corp., Respondent-Appellant, and Great NY Noodletown, Inc.,Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Stuart B. Cholewa of counsel), forrespondent-appellant. Dansker & Aspromonte Associates, New York (Douglas E. Hoffer of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered February 14,2013, which denied defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaintand all cross claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a large patch of grease on the publicsidewalk abutting the premises owned by Young T. Lee & Son Realty Corp. (Lee Realty)and subleased by Great NY Noodletown, Inc. (Noodletown), which operated a restaurantin the space.
Lee Realty, which has a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting itspremises pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210, failed to meet itsprima facie burden to eliminate the issue of constructive notice since it submitted noevidence establishing when the sidewalk was last cleaned or inspected prior to plaintiff'sfall (see Sabalza v Salgado,85 AD3d 436, 437-438 [1st Dept 2011]).
Noodletown also failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.The record presents triable issues as to whether Noodletown created the greasy conditionon the sidewalk by disposing of waste from its restaurant on the sidewalk. There isevidence that Noodletown placed garbage bags on the sidewalk near the area whereplaintiff fell (see Kesselman vLever House Rest., 29 AD3d 302, 304-305 [1st Dept 2006]; Healy v ARPCable, 299 AD2d 152, 154 [1st Dept 2002]).
Defendants' argument that plaintiff did not sufficiently identify the cause of her fall isunavailing. While she admitted to some uncertainty because she did not see when herfoot slipped on the grease patch, plaintiff stated that following her fall, she found herselflying on top of the grease patch, her clothing and shoes had grease on them, and her shoehad left a groove in the patch. Moreover, photographs taken at the scene appear to matchplaintiff's description of [*2]the sidewalk condition. Suchevidence establishes a sufficient nexus between the hazardous condition and thecircumstances of the fall, so as to establish causation (see Cherry v Daytop Vil., Inc., 41 AD3d 130 [1st Dept2007]).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ. [PriorCase History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30327(U).]