The following efile papers numbered 29-51, 53-55 submitted and considered on this motion by defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYJ), JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue)and Schindler Elevator Corporation (Schindler)for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.Papers NumberedNotice of Motion — Affidavits — Exhibits EF 29-51Answering Affidavits — Exhibits EF 53-54Reply Affidavits EF 55 Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that the motion is determined as follows:This action arises from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell down an escalator located at the JetBlue terminal in John F. Kennedy airport on February 28, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that she had taken one step onto a descending escalator, when “something grabbed my right heel” and “raised my right foot”. Plaintiff claims that defendants were negligent in the maintenance, repair and inspection of the escalator and relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.It is well settled that a property owner has a nondelegable duty to maintain and repair the escalators on its premises. (See Isaacs v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 146 AD3d 762 [2d Dept 2017]; Roberts v. Old Navy, 134 AD3d 1088 [2d Dept 2015].) A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing that it did not create the alleged defective condition nor has either actual or constructive notice of it for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. (See Isaacs, 146 AD3d 762.) In order to establish lack of constructive notice, a defendant must provide some evidence regarding the last time the site was inspected relative to the time of accident. (See id.)Here, defendants have established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the escalator was regularly inspected and maintained, and that they did not create nor have actual or constructive notice of a prior similar incident or an ongoing defective condition that would have caused the escalator to malfunction as described by plaintiff. (See Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 151 AD3d 1090 [2d Dept 2017]; Vilardi v. Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc., 145 AD3d 711 [2d Dept 2016].) The evidence submitted in support, including defendants’ deposition testimony and work records, demonstrate that the escalator was regularly inspected and maintained. Specifically, Erik Espinosa, a facility manager employed by JetBlue testified that JetBlue had not received any prior complaints regarding the escalator. Barry Shand, a construction inspector employed by PANYJ, testified that the escalator underwent its annual inspection on September 10, 2014 and at that time, no life endangering conditions were noted. Bruce Rusoff, an elevator mechanic employed by Schindler, testified that he performed preventative maintenance on the escalator on the day before the accident and found the escalator to be in good working condition. There were no records of prior complaints and no problems identified on the maintenance records which could have caused the alleged condition. The elevator was examined the day after the accident, and aside from a screw stuck in the escalator, which is not alleged to be the cause of the accident, no other issue or problem relating to the escalator was noted. (See Cilinger v. Arditi Realty Corp., 77 AD3d 880 [2d Dept 2010].) Moreover, according to the defendants’ expert, the escalator was properly maintained and there was no evidence of malfunction.In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence fails to reveal the existence of a defective condition. (See Goodwin v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. 156 AD3d 765 [2d Dept 2017]; Forde v. Vornado Realty Trust, 89 AD3d 678 [2d Dept 2011].) Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the defendants cannot be held liable pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as plaintiffs have failed to establish that the escalator was in the defendants’ exclusive control as it was continuously used by the public; the accident could not occurred but for the defendants’ negligence; and the lack of any comparative negligence by the plaintiff. (See Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority, 70 NY2d 621 [1987]; Ramjohn, 151 AD3d 1090.) Although plaintiff’s expert opines that the accident was caused by defendants’ failure to properly inspect, maintain and repair the escalator, these assertions are merely speculative, and thus, have no probative value. (See Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 [2002]; Hussey v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 164 AD3d 482 [2d Dept 2018]; Goodwin, 156 AD3d 765.)Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the Court.Dated: February 11, 2019
