Opinion
05-17-2016
Luz CHAPMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.
Peña & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondent.
Peña & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered October 16, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff's notice of claim and complaint, as amplified by her bill of particulars, made clear that she was alleging that there were at least two separate dangerous conditions that caused or contributed to her fall, namely, the presence of a dirty, dark, somewhat dry liquid on the stairs and the defective condition of the stairs themselves, which plaintiff alleges were worn, uneven and slippery. Defendant's motion addressed the former condition but not the latter, thereby failing to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see e.g. Breitman v. Dennett, 77 A.D.3d 498, 910 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept.2010] ; Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 1007, 1008–1009, 951 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept.2012] ). In view of defendant's failure to meet its initial burden, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition to the motion (see Simantov v. Kipps Taxi, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 661, 891 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1st Dept.2009] ).
MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, GESMER, JJ., concur.