ANDRINI v. NAVARRA (2008)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 5, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 In order to prevail on their motion for summary judgment in this action involving a fall upon an allegedly defective stairway, the defendants were “ ‘required to establish as a matter of law that they maintained the property in question in a reasonably safe condition and that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive notice thereof’ ” (see Mokszki v. Pratt, 13 A.D.3d 709, 710, 786 N.Y.S.2d 222, quoting Richardson v. Rotterdam Sq. Mall, 289 A.D.2d 679, 679, 734 N.Y.S.2d 303;  Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, 307 A.D.2d 984, 986, 763 N.Y.S.2d 669, affd. 3 N.Y.3d 743, 787 N.Y.S.2d 215, 820 N.E.2d 859).   To give rise to constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).   Only after the defendants have satisfied their threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;  Soto-Lopez v. Board of Mgrs. of Crescent Tower Condominium, 44 A.D.3d 846, 843 N.Y.S.2d 444).

Here, the defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.   Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.