Opinion
2002-10468.
Decided December 15, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated October 15, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Steven D. Dollinger, Melville, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.
Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Samantha B. Lansky of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant satisfied its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment by demonstrating through the deposition testimony of its part-time manager and certain restaurant guests that the alleged leak that caused the wet condition upon which the plaintiff fell started only moments before the accident, and that it did not have notice of the condition ( see Chemont v. Pathmark Supermarkets, 279 A.D.2d 545).
The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see generally Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). Her reliance on the purported statements of the defendant's part-time manager and an unidentified female patron to establish notice of the condition on the part of the defendant is misplaced. Assuming arguendo that those statements constituted evidence in admissible form ( but see Paino v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 304 A.D.2d 543 ; Sherman v. Tamarack Lodge, 146 A.D.2d 767), there was no showing that they concerned the same condition which caused the plaintiff's fall, nor do they demonstrate that the defendant had a reasonable time within which to remedy the condition ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836).
SANTUCCI, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.