Realty defendant in New York

2023As to that portion of East 165 Realty's motion seeking renewal, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion, as the affidavit of the nonparty witness did not present new facts unknown to East 165 Realty at the time of Black Cat's original motion to strike, and no valid excuse was presented for the failure to include the affidavit on the original motion ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]-[3]; Ramos v Stern , 100 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2012]; Castillo v Zimmerly , 260 AD2d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 1999]).

2023As to that portion of East 165 Realty's motion seeking renewal, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion, as the affidavit of the nonparty witness did not present new facts unknown to East 165 Realty at the time of Black Cat's original motion to strike, and no valid excuse was presented for the failure to include the affidavit on the original motion ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]-[3]; Ramos v Stern , 100 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2012]; Castillo v Zimmerly , 260 AD2d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 1999]).

2023As to the motion for summary judgment, Black Cat made a prima facie showing that it did not cause, create or have notice of the hole in the metal entrance door saddle of the restaurant, by submitting the deposition testimony of the restaurant's manager, who testified that no repairs were made to the exterior stairs since Black Cat's acquisition of the building in 2014, he never saw a delivery person damage the steps with a hand truck, and that neither he nor the owner of the restaurant received a complaint about the entranceway or were aware of any similar incidents before plaintiff fell ( see

2023As to the motion for summary judgment, Black Cat made a prima facie showing that it did not cause, create or have notice of the hole in the metal entrance door saddle of the restaurant, by submitting the deposition testimony of the restaurant's manager, who testified that no repairs were made to the exterior stairs since Black Cat's acquisition of the building in 2014, he never saw a delivery person damage the steps with a hand truck, and that neither he nor the owner of the restaurant received a complaint about the entranceway or were aware of any similar incidents before plaintiff fell ( see

2023As to that portion of East 165 Realty's motion seeking renewal, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion, as the affidavit of the nonparty witness did not present new facts unknown to East 165 Realty at the time of Black Cat's original motion to strike, and no valid excuse was presented for the failure to include the affidavit on the original motion ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]-[3]; Ramos v Stern , 100 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2012]; Castillo v Zimmerly , 260 AD2d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 1999]).

2023As to that portion of East 165 Realty's motion seeking renewal, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion, as the affidavit of the nonparty witness did not present new facts unknown to East 165 Realty at the time of Black Cat's original motion to strike, and no valid excuse was presented for the failure to include the affidavit on the original motion ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]-[3]; Ramos v Stern , 100 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2012]; Castillo v Zimmerly , 260 AD2d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 1999]).

2023Plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise an issue of fact whether BRH negligently created or exacerbated a dangerous condition ( see Lingenfelter , 149 AD3d at 1523-1524; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2014For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff failed to establish *849 her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court properly denied her motion for summary judgment (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2014Assoc., L.P., 96 AD3d at 736; Robinson v M.

2014Assoc., L.P., 96 AD3d at 736; Robinson v M.

2023In opposition, plaintiffs and the Realty defendants "failed to submit any evidence that the plans and specifications were blatantly defective and that [Allied] was, therefore, unjustified in relying upon them" ( Pioli v Town of Kirkwood , 117 AD2d 954, 955 [3d Dept 1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 601 [1986]; see Dentico , 207 AD3d at 1038 ; Rechlin , 298 AD2d at 908 ).

2023It is well settled that, as a general rule, "[o]ne's liability in negligence for the condition of land ceases when the premises pass out of one's control before injury results" ( Kilmer v White , 254 NY 64, 69 [1930]; see Powers v City of Geneva , 192 AD3d 1632, 1633 [4th Dept 2021]).

2023Contrary to the procedural assertion of plaintiffs and the Realty defendants that BRH's motion should have been denied as premature, we conclude that they "failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of [BRH]" and that "the [m]ere hope that somehow . . . plaintiff[s and the Realty defendants] will uncover evidence that will prove a case is insufficient for denial of the motion" ( Chambers v Town of Shelby , 211 AD3d 1456, 1457 [4th Dept 2022] [internal quot

2023In opposition, plaintiffs and the Realty defendants "failed to submit any evidence that the plans and specifications were blatantly defective and that [Allied] was, therefore, unjustified in relying upon them" ( Pioli v Town of Kirkwood , 117 AD2d 954, 955 [3d Dept 1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 601 [1986]; see Dentico , 207 AD3d at 1038 ; Rechlin , 298 AD2d at 908 ).

2023It is well settled that, as a general rule, "[o]ne's liability in negligence for the condition of land ceases when the premises pass out of one's control before injury results" ( Kilmer v White , 254 NY 64, 69 [1930]; see Powers v City of Geneva , 192 AD3d 1632, 1633 [4th Dept 2021]).

2023Inasmuch as "a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party" ( Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs. , 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

2023Moreover, they failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see Shields v Darpoh , 207 AD3d at 587-588; Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan , 189 AD3d at 1362 ; see also Gunther v Vilceus , 142 AD3d 639, 640-641 ).

2023Flynn , 109 AD3d at 1209 ; Werner v Neary , 264 AD2d 731, 731 [2d Dept 1999]).

2023Plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard ( see id. ). 9187 Group and Ellicott also established that the narrow exception applicable "when a former owner who is also acting as a construction contractor is alleged to have affirmatively created a dangerous condition" ( Scheffield v Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC , 139 AD3d 1161, 1163 [3d Dept 2016]) does not apply inasmuch as they had no involvement in the design or construction of the stairway, and plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise an issue of fact ( see id. at 1163 ). [*3]In addit

2023Plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard ( see id. ). 9187 Group and Ellicott also established that the narrow exception applicable "when a former owner who is also acting as a construction contractor is alleged to have affirmatively created a dangerous condition" ( Scheffield v Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC , 139 AD3d 1161, 1163 [3d Dept 2016]) does not apply inasmuch as they had no involvement in the design or construction of the stairway, and plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise an issue of fact ( see id. at 1163 ). [*3]In addit

2023Plaintiffs and the Realty defendants failed to raise an issue of fact whether BRH negligently created or exacerbated a dangerous condition ( see Lingenfelter , 149 AD3d at 1523-1524; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2023Finally, contrary to the Realty defendants' assertions in appeal Nos. 1 and 2, we conclude that the court properly granted the respective motions of BRH, Allied, and 9187 Group and Ellicott insofar as they sought summary judgment dismissing the Realty defendants' cross-claims against them ( see Grove v Cornell Univ. , 151 AD3d 1813, 1815-1816 [4th Dept 2017]).

2023Finally, contrary to the Realty defendants' assertions in appeal Nos. 1 and 2, we conclude that the court properly granted the respective motions of BRH, Allied, and 9187 Group and Ellicott insofar as they sought summary judgment dismissing the Realty defendants' cross-claims against them ( see Grove v Cornell Univ. , 151 AD3d 1813, 1815-1816 [4th Dept 2017]).

2022The Supreme Court should have granted the Realty defendants' motion for summary judgment on their cross claim seeking contractual indemnification against Din ( see Bilska v Truszkowski , 171 AD3d 685 , 687; see also Kumar v PI Assoc., LLC , 125 AD3d 609, 612 ).

2022The Supreme Court should have granted the Realty defendants' motion for summary judgment on their cross claim seeking contractual indemnification against Din ( see Bilska v Truszkowski , 171 AD3d 685 , 687; see also Kumar v PI Assoc., LLC , 125 AD3d 609, 612 ).