| Griffith v JK Chopra Holding, LLC |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07448 [111 AD3d 666] |
| November 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gary Griffith, Respondent, v JK Chopra Holding,LLC, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered September 18, 2012,which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On June 30, 2009, the plaintiff, a mail carrier, allegedly was injured when he felldown an exterior staircase located at a building on 122nd Street in Queens. In February2010, he commenced this action against the defendants, the alleged owners of thepremises, to recover damages for personal injuries. After the completion of discovery, thedefendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Courtdenied the motion.
By failing to demonstrate when the area where the plaintiff fell was last inspected inrelation to the accident, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that theylacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition described by the plaintiff(see Green v QuincyAmusements, Inc., 108 AD3d 591 [2013]; Green v Albemarle, LLC, 107 AD3d 948, 948 [2013]; Alexander v New York City Hous.Auth., 89 AD3d 969 [2011]; Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp., 83 AD3d 47, 52-53[2011]). Further, the defendants, by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof, ratherthan affirmatively demonstrating the merit of their defense, failed to carry their burden asmovants seeking summary judgment on the issue of whether the condition complained ofdid in fact constitute a defect (see Green v Albemarle, LLC, 107 AD3d at948; Proulx v Entergy NuclearIndian Point 2, LLC, 98 AD3d 492 [2012]; Delaney v Town Sports Intl., 88 AD3d 635 [2011]; Gestetner v Teitelbaum, 52AD3d 778 [2008]; see alsoMarielisa R. v Wolman Rink Operations, LLC, 94 AD3d 963 [2012]; Rubistello v Bartolini Landscaping,Inc., 87 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2011]; Shafi v Motta, 73 AD3d 729, 730 [2010]).
Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, the Supreme Courtproperly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, withoutregard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v NewYork Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen andMiller, JJ., concur.