Opinion
13667 Index No. 22235/15E Case No. 2020-03555
04-27-2021
Beatrice VILLAR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.
Law Office of Ryan S. Goldstein, PLLC, Bronx (Ryan S. Goldstein of counsel), for appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Ryan S. Goldstein, PLLC, Bronx (Ryan S. Goldstein of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Mazzarelli, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered July 27, 2020, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established prima facie that the complaint should be dismissed by showing that it had no actual or constructive notice of the wet condition of the stairs that plaintiff alleges caused her to slip and fall (see Frederick v. New York City Hous. Auth., 172 A.D.3d 545, 100 N.Y.S.3d 258 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Manderson v. Phipps Houses Servs., Inc., 173 A.D.3d 459, 103 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Defendant submitted testimony by the supervisor of its building caretakers, evidence of the janitorial cleaning schedules for the building, and an affidavit by the building's caretaker that she fulfilled her regularly scheduled cleaning duties in the late afternoon of the day before plaintiff's accident, as well as the morning of the accident at about the time of the accident, that during each inspection she found the staircase clean, dry, and free of debris, and that otherwise she would have immediately addressed any dangerous condition she observed.
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact via her expert opinion, prepared four years after the commencement of the action, which introduced new theories of liability notwithstanding her testimony that she believed that the alleged water hazard was the sole cause of the accident (see e.g. Nicholas v. New York City Hous. Auth., 65 A.D.3d 925, 926–927, 885 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Even if the stairs were otherwise defective as plaintiff's expert contends, defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment, because there is no evidence that these defects contributed to plaintiff's accident (see Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 501, 387 N.Y.S.2d 92, 354 N.E.2d 832 [1976] ).