CRAYTON v. AAK LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant AAK Holdings, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Phillip Hom, J.), entered September 17, 2024.  The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained while shopping for a table on the premises of the defendant Elegant Restaurant Equipment & Supplies, Inc. (hereinafter Elegant), in a building owned by the defendant AAK Holdings, LLC (hereinafter AAK).  The plaintiff alleged that while she was ascending a ladder to a mezzanine level of the subject premises in order to access the location of the tables, the ladder, which was leaned against a wall, fell from under her feet while she was standing on the third or fourth rung.  AAK moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.  In an order entered September 17, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion.  AAK appeals.

“A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition” (Cabanas v. Qiu Yu Zou, 215 A.D.3d 726, 727, 187 N.Y.S.3d 708).  “A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a premises liability cause of action has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” (Richardson v. Brooklake Assoc., L.P., 131 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 16 N.Y.S.3d 603;  see Cabanas v. Qiu Yu Zou, 215 A.D.3d at 727, 187 N.Y.S.3d 708).  However, “[t]he issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” (Amparo v. Christopher One Corp., 225 A.D.3d 652, 654, 207 N.Y.S.3d 133;  see Giahn v. Yakubov, 235 A.D.3d 955, 956, 227 N.Y.S.3d 708).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, AAK failed to establish that there was not a hazardous condition at the premises with regard to access to the mezzanine level (see Ogletree v. Long Is. Univ., 230 A.D.3d 804, 805, 215 N.Y.S.3d 534;  Cabanas v. Qiu Yu Zou, 215 A.D.3d at 728, 187 N.Y.S.3d 708) or that AAK was unaware of such condition (see Giahn v. Yakubov, 235 A.D.3d at 956, 227 N.Y.S.3d 708;  Dougherty v. 359 Lewis Ave. Assoc., LLC, 191 A.D.3d 763, 764–765, 142 N.Y.S.3d 92).  Since AAK failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Amparo v. Christopher One Corp., 225 A.D.3d at 655, 207 N.Y.S.3d 133;  Cabanas v. Qiu Yu Zou, 215 A.D.3d at 728, 187 N.Y.S.3d 708).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.