Court Opinion

ID: 5746769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:50:41.97993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:10.495968
License: Public Domain

In response to the defendants’ showing that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition complained of for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it, the plaintiffs failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Arrufat v City of New York, 45 AD3d 710 [2007]; Seabury v County of Dutchess, 38 AD3d 752 [2007]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.