Viridiana Gonzalez, appellant, v. Natick N.Y. Freeport Realty Corp., et al., respondents. (2012)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Viridiana Gonzalez, appellant, v. Natick N.Y. Freeport Realty Corp., et al., respondents.

2010–08960 (Index No. 18471 /08)

Decided: January 10, 2012

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P. L. PRISCILLA HALL LEONARD B. AUSTIN ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Patrick Michael Megaro, Uniondale, N.Y. (John S. Campo of counsel), for appellant. Torino & Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce A. Torino of counsel), for respondents. To impose liability upon the defendants for the plaintiff ‘s fall, there must be evidence tending to show, inter alia, the existence of a dangerous or defective condition (see Penn v Fleet Bank, 12 AD3d 584;  Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 A.D.2d 336;  Brown–Phifer v Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 A.D.2d 564).   In support of that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, among other things, the affidavit of the defendants' loss prevention manager and photographs of the accident site demonstrating that the sewer grate and pavement where the plaintiff fell did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition (see Riley v Lake Rd. Condominiums, 47 AD3d 697;  Scarpinito v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 26 AD3d 322;  Ekeland v City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 345;  see also Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977–978).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a dangerous or defective condition (see Riley v Lake Rd. Condominiums, 47 AD3d at 698;  Scarpinito v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 26 AD3d at 323;  Sanchez v City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 487).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.