CRAWFORD v. JEFFERSON HOUSE ASSOCIATES LLC (2008)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 4, 2007, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell while walking down the stairway of the subject apartment building.   The surface of the concrete and steel stairway was painted, and the plaintiff reported seeing a small amount of coffee spilled on the step on which he slipped.

The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that they had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (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;  Applegate v. Long Is. Power Auth., 53 A.D.3d 515, 516, 862 N.Y.S.2d 86;  Palermo v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 20 A.D.3d 516, 517, 799 N.Y.S.2d 248), nor had their affirmative acts created the dangerous condition (see German v. Campbell Inn, 37 A.D.3d 405, 829 N.Y.S.2d 631;  Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach, 605, 298 A.D.2d 571, 571-572, 749 N.Y.S.2d 543;  Lindeman v. Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392, 712 N.Y.S.2d 594).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see German v. Campbell Inn, 37 A.D.3d 405, 829 N.Y.S.2d 631;  Palermo v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 20 A.D.3d at 517, 799 N.Y.S.2d 248;  Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach 605, 298 A.D.2d at 571-572, 749 N.Y.S.2d 543;  Lindeman v. Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392, 712 N.Y.S.2d 594).   The expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion merely alleged that the application of paint to the stairway made it inherently slippery, and the stairway failed to meet “good and accepted” engineering safety practices.   These conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see German v. Campbell Inn, 37 A.D.3d 405, 829 N.Y.S.2d 631;  Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach 605, 298 A.D.2d at 571-572, 749 N.Y.S.2d 543;  see also Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 971-972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796;  Lindeman v. Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392, 712 N.Y.S.2d 594).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before us.