Morrison v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Full title: Gregory MORRISON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 18, 2024

41 N.Y.3d 1023 (N.Y. 2024)

41 N.Y.3d 1023

239 N.E.3d 180

Opinion

04-18-2024

Gregory MORRISON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Wiese & Aydiner PLLC, Mineola (Si Aydiner of counsel), and Pulvers, Pulvers & Thompson, LLP, New York City, for appellant. Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York City (Diana Neyman of counsel), for respondent. Thomas E. Liptak, Defense Association of New York, Inc. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, Andrew Zajac, Rona L. Platt, Matthew S. Lerner and Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Defense Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.

MEMORANDUM.

Wiese & Aydiner PLLC, Mineola (Si Aydiner of counsel), and Pulvers, Pulvers & Thompson, LLP, New York City, for appellant.

Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York City (Diana Neyman of counsel), for respondent.

Thomas E. Liptak, Defense Association of New York, Inc. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, Andrew Zajac, Rona L. Platt, Matthew S. Lerner and Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Defense Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

₁₀₂₄The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff brought the instant premises liability action against defendant seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on a wet substance on the stairs of an apartment building owned by defendant. Plaintiff asserts that defendant is liable because defendant negligently painted the treads on the stairs such that the treads have an inadequate coefficient of friction when wet. Because the alleged hazardous condition exists only when the stairs are wet, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it did not affirmatively create the wet condition or have actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Parietti v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 1136, 1137, 61 N.Y.S.3d 523, 83 N.E.3d 853 [2017]). We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response (see 209 A.D.3d 588, 176 N.Y.S.3d 254 [1st Dept. 2022]).

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.