DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A property owner is not liable in negligence unless he or she created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence ( see Voss v. DC Parking, 299 A.D.2d 346). While an out-of-possession owner is generally not liable for injuries that occur on leased premises, one who retains control of the premises, or contracts to repair or maintain the property, may be liable for defects ( see Eckers v. Suede, 294 A.D.2d 533; Gilbert v. 4905 Ave. D Realty, 224 A.D.2d 659 . "Control of the premises may be established by proof of the landlord's promise, either written or otherwise, to keep certain premises in repair ( see Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607), or by a course of conduct demonstrating that the landlord has assumed responsibility to maintain a particular portion of the premises" ( Gelardo v. ASMA Realty Corp., 137 A.D.2d 787, 788).
Here, the defendant Dimitra Kustas failed to meet her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment of showing that she did not retain control over the subject premises and, in any event, lacked notice of the allegedly dangerous condition where the injured plaintiff fell ( see Jenkins v. Ehmer, 272 A.D.2d 976, 977). She failed to tender evidence sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320).
Therefore, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853), and the motion was properly denied.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.