Munroe v Zimmerman

Aug 5, 2026
2025-00894
Versions:2026 NY Slip Op 04865

Shakhnevich Law Group P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Steven Shakhnevich and Andrei A. Popescu of counsel), for appellant.

James F. Butler, Jericho, NY (Nancy S. Goodman of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated November 21, 2024. The order granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On April 21, 2017, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped on a landing or top step while descending an exterior staircase of a residence owned by the defendants and then stumbled down the staircase. It was raining at the time of the accident, and the landing and the top step were wet. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order dated November 21, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241; Bennett v Alleyne, 163 AD3d 754, 754-755). “In order to impose liability upon a defendant in possession of real property in a slip-and-fall case, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous or defective condition” (Smith v 3173 Gas Corp., 216 AD3d 1192, 1192; see Shuttleworth v Saint Margaret‘s R.C. Church in Middle Vil., 209 AD3d 786, 787). “The mere fact that an outdoor walkway or stairway becomes wet from precipitation is insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous condition” (Derosa v Zaliv, LLC, 189 AD3d 1355, 1356; see Medina v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 AD3d 798, 799).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff‘s slip on the landing or top step of the stairway occurred solely because the area was wet due to precipitation. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff‘s deposition testimony, which established that the location where the plaintiff slipped and stumbled was wet due to the rain that had fallen and was still falling at the time of the accident (see Smith v 3173 Gas Corp., 216 AD3d at 1192; Derosa v Zaliv, LLC, 189 AD3d at 1356).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiff‘s expert opined that certain dangerous conditions existed on the stairway during his inspection, he did not opine that any of these conditions were a proximate cause of the plaintiff‘s accident (see Baterna v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 139 AD3d 653, 654). Moreover, the expert‘s inspection occurred almost six years after the plaintiff‘s accident, and there was no evidence that the condition of the staircase was the same at that time as it was at the time of the accident, rendering the expert‘s conclusion speculative and conclusory (see Zeppetelli v 1372 Broadway, LLC, 222 AD3d 813, 815; DeCarlo v Village of Dobbs Ferry, 36 AD3d 749, 750).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or need not be reached in light of our determination.

BARROS, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court