ZAVLANOVA v. JETRO CASH AND CARRY ENTERPRISES LLC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), entered December 22, 2023.  The order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on a puddle of dirty water in an aisle of the defendant's store.  In an order entered December 22, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  The defendant appeals.

An owner or possessor of real property has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868).  “A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that [it] was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” (Bristol v. Biser, 230 A.D.3d 1098, 1099–1100, 218 N.Y.S.3d 112 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant's submissions contained conflicting material facts and, therefore, failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Brower v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 233 A.D.3d 1019, 223 N.Y.S.3d 278;  see generally Schmitz v. Pinto, 220 A.D.3d 681, 682, 197 N.Y.S.3d 326).  Since the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.