RUIZ v. WORLD REALTY INC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Claudia Lanzetta, J.), entered February 1, 2024.  The order granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In May 2019, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on a metal plate located between a sidewalk and the entrance of the parking garage in the defendants' building in Queens.  The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries.  At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that it was “drizzl[ing]” at the time of the accident and that he “slipped” on the metal plate, which was “wet,” as he was walking into the parking garage, causing him to fall on his buttock.  The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  In an order entered February 1, 2024, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“ ‘In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition upon the landowner's property, the plaintiff must establish, among other things, that a dangerous or defective condition actually existed’ ” (Shuttleworth v. Saint Margaret's Roman Catholic Church in Middle Vil., 209 A.D.3d 786, 787, 175 N.Y.S.3d 575, quoting Riley v. Lake Rd. Condominiums, 47 A.D.3d 697, 698, 849 N.Y.S.2d 602;  see McKevitt v. True N. Urgent Care, LLC, 224 A.D.3d 741, 742, 205 N.Y.S.3d 179).  Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the metal plate on which the plaintiff slipped and fell was not a dangerous or defective condition (see Smith v. 3173 Gas Corp., 216 A.D.3d 1192, 1192, 190 N.Y.S.3d 122;  Shuttleworth v. Saint Margaret's Roman Catholic Church in Middle Vil., 209 A.D.3d at 787, 175 N.Y.S.3d 575;  Derosa v. Zaliv, LLC, 189 A.D.3d 1355, 1356, 134 N.Y.S.3d 796;  Rojecki v. Genting N.Y., LLC, 176 A.D.3d 992, 993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 243;  Bernal v. 521 Park Ave. Condo, 128 A.D.3d 750, 751, 9 N.Y.S.3d 358).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his affidavit, in which he averred that he fell due to a “raised defect” in the concrete abutting the metal plate, presented a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony as to the cause of his fall and, thus, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see D.S. v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 223 A.D.3d 925, 926, 204 N.Y.S.3d 531;  Meade v. Hampton Diaries, Inc., 219 A.D.3d 1424, 1425, 196 N.Y.S.3d 167).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, DOWLING and HOM, JJ., concur.