PRUSAK v. N.Y. CITY HOUSING AUTH

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Rodriguez v. White Plains Pub. Schools, 35 AD3d 704; Perlongo v. Park City 3 4 Apts., Inc., 31 AD3d 409, 410). Here, the defendant third-party plaintiff satisfied this burden ( see Calo v. Bel-Mar Spa, Inc., 38 AD3d 488; Nisimov v. Ocean Props., LLC, 10 AD3d 640). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Muniz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 628). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.