| Lee v Burger King |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01309 [59 AD3d 280] |
| February 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Timothy Lee, Respondent, v Burger King et al., Respondents-Appellants, and 101 East 161st Street Restaurant Corp., et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for
respondents-appellants.
Shaevitz & Shaevitz, Jamaica (Jonathan R. Vitarelli of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 10, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants 101 East 161st Street Restaurant Corp. and 101 Restaurant Corp. and the cross motion of Burger King, Burger King Corp. and Walton Foods Enterprises, L.L.C. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants did not demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment, since their conflicting evidence failed to establish their lack of responsibility for the alleged hazardous grease condition on the public sidewalk and since their argument that other possible sources for the condition existed was properly rejected (see Bowry v Uptown Gift Shop, 292 AD2d 240 [2002]). In any event, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with evidence from which a jury could [*2]infer that one, or more, of defendants created the alleged hazardous condition (see Vazquez v Santana, 291 AD2d 230 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.