CONDRA v. RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice near the appellant's vehicle which was parked in a lot. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the appellant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof that the position of its vehicle was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries ( see Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 503; Haylett v. New York City Tr. Auth., 251 A.D.2d 373, 374; Ely v. Pierce, 302 A.D.2d 489). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the appellant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it should have been granted ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, SMITH and RIVERA, JJ., concur.