Opinion
2002-06312
Submitted April 11, 2003.
May 5, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (La Torella, J.), dated June 12, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion to add Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc., as a defendant.
Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Elisa Treglia of counsel), for appellant.
Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert T. Baer of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not own, possess, or control the property where the plaintiff was injured (see Ross v. Lyndhurst, 290 A.D.2d 432; Gennosa v. Twinco Servs., 267 A.D.2d 200). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant exercised such ownership, possession, or control (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). Furthermore, in opposition to the defendant's establishment of prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant created the alleged dangerous condition which caused her to fall (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Ellis v. New York Racing Asso., 300 A.D.2d 621). Additionally, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion to add Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc., as a defendant, because the plaintiff failed to establish that Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc., and the defendant were united in interest (see Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173; Brady v. 5644 Ave. U Assoc., 291 A.D.2d 523; Malament v. VASAP Constr. Corp., 285 A.D.2d 584).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.