While plaintiff, in response to defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to raise any triable issue of fact as whether defendant Cushman Wakefield had notice of the alleged elevator defect, plaintiff, through his expert's affidavit, did raise a factual issue as to whether defendant Otis Elevator had actual or constructive notice of said defect. Otis was under a contractual obligation to inspect and maintain the elevators in the subject building and the expert's affidavit, based on the expert's review of the deposition testimony and documentary evidence, by lending support to the inference that Otis Elevator did not conduct reasonably prudent inspections of, or competently maintain, the elevator in question, raised a triable issue as to whether Otis Elevator either created or should have known of the defective condition that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury (see, Rogers v. Dorchester Assocs., 32 N.Y.2d 553; Burgess v. Otis Elevator Co., 114 A.D.2d 784, affd 69 N.Y.2d 623).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.