Opinion
2012-01-10
Viridiana GONZALEZ, appellant, v. NATICK N.Y. FREEPORT REALTY CORP., et al., respondents.
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.
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.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered July 28, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a sewer grate as she was exiting her motor vehicle in the defendants' parking lot. Alleging that she was injured due to an “unsafe, dangerous and defective condition” in the defendants' parking lot, she commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of the fall.
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 A.D.3d 584, 785 N.Y.S.2d 107; Christopher v. New York City Tr. Auth., 300 A.D.2d 336, 752 N.Y.S.2d 76; Brown–Phifer v. Cross County Mall Multiplex, 282 A.D.2d 564, 723 N.Y.S.2d 393). 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 A.D.3d 697, 849 N.Y.S.2d 602; Scarpinito v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 26 A.D.3d 322, 809 N.Y.S.2d 158; Ekeland v. City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 345, 709 N.Y.S.2d 617; see also Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977–978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489). 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 A.D.3d at 698, 849 N.Y.S.2d 602; Scarpinito v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 26 A.D.3d at 323, 809 N.Y.S.2d 158; Sanchez v. City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.