AHMED v. Thyssenkrupp Corporation, Defendant. (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D.S. Wright, J.), entered August 29, 2016, which denied the motion of defendant Macy's Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Macy's established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he slipped and fell on an escalator in Macy's department store.  Macy's submitted, inter alia, deposition testimony of two of its employees, as well as the records of maintenance and inspections of the escalator by defendant Thyssenkrupp Corp. and the New York City Department of Buildings.  Such evidence showed that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected during the years prior to plaintiff's accident, and there were never any reports of accidents or other problems with the escalator (see Parris v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2008];  Gjonaj v. Otis El. Co., 38 A.D.3d 384, 832 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1st Dept. 2007] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable of fact.  Plaintiff's wife's hearsay statement that the stairs were wet does not indicate that they were wet long enough for Macy's to have notice of the condition.  Similarly, plaintiff's testimony that the rubber handrail pulled up when he grasped at it as he slipped, does not raise an issue of fact that any such defect existed long enough for Macy's to have notice, particularly since there were no prior complaints and in light of the evidence of regular maintenance and City inspections showing no problems (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 [1986];  Curiale v. Sharrotts Woods, Inc., 9 A.D.3d 473, 474–475, 781 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2d Dept. 2004] ).  Furthermore, the opinion of plaintiff's expert engineer that the wooden escalator treads were more slippery than industry safety standards permit does not raise an issue of fact.