Bachan v NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

Bachan v NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 08040 Decided on December 4, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 4, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
SHERI S. ROMAN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2012-07415
(Index No. 18613/06)

[*1]Anil Bachan, appellant,

v

NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., respondent (and a third-party action).




Avi D. Caspi (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., of
counsel), for appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y.
(Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Bryan T. Schwartz
of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), entered January 17, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court dated November 29, 2011, in effect, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At approximately 6:30 p.m. on June 27, 2005, the plaintiff, an employee of the third-party defendant, Delight Construction Company, allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell while descending an interior, permanently affixed ladder connecting the third floor and the roof of the defendant's premises. The plaintiff alleged that the hatch which led to the roof of the subject building had been left open and, since it had rained earlier that day, the rain had fallen into the building, making the ladder slippery.

The defendant established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly wet condition which caused the plaintiff to fall (see Pungello v Window Network, LLC, 102 AD3d 850). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, thus, the judgment dismissing the complaint must be affirmed.
DILLON, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court