| Rallo v Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03248 [117 AD3d 705] |
| May 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Rosemarie Gambino Rallo et al.,Appellants, v Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc., et al.,Respondents. |
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), forappellants.
Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y.(Anton Piotroski of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated September 18, 2013,which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initialburden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition,nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time todiscover and remedy it" (Petersel v Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern, N.Y., 99 AD3d880, 880 [2012]; see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; Halpernv Costco Warehouse/Costco Wholesale, 95 AD3d 828, 828 [2012]). Themovant's burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case (see Edwards v Great Atl. &Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721 [2010]; Gregg v Key Food Supermarket, 50 AD3d 1093 [2008]; DeFalco v BJ's Wholesale Club,Inc., 38 AD3d 824 [2007]).
Here, the defendants demonstrated that, although they had actual notice of theallegedly hazardous condition, they did not have enough time to remedy the condition(see Alami v 215 E. 68th St.,L.P., 88 AD3d 924, 925 [2011]; Sloane v Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522, 523[2008]). In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of their entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Theplaintiffs' submission of statements allegedly made by an employee of the defendants tothe injured plaintiff at the time of the accident concerning the length of time the allegedlyhazardous condition existed constituted hearsay (see Tyrrell v Wal-Mart Stores,97 NY2d 650, 652 [2001]; Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 603 [2001];Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 21 NY2d 518, 524 [1968]). Whilehearsay statements may be used to oppose motions for summary judgment, they cannot,as here, be the only evidence submitted to raise a triable issue of fact (see Phillips vKantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 313-314 [1972]; Castle v Bawuah, 101 AD3d922, 924 [2012]; Sermos vGruppuso, 95 AD3d 985 [2012]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Eng, P.J.,Miller, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.