8802-8802A. GUILLERMO PICASO, plf-res, v. 345 EAST 73 OWNERS CORP. DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY plf-res, v. TOWER BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Third-Party def-ap — Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains (William T. O’Connell of counsel), for ap — Levine and Grossman, Mineola (Scott D. Rubin of counsel), for Guillermo Picaso, res — Thomas D. Hughes, New York (Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for 345 East 73 Owners Corp. and Goodstein Management, Inc., res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants 345 East 73 Owners Corp. and Goodstein Management, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §200 and common-law negligence causes of action, and denied third-party defendant Tower Building Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification claim, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, conditionally granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §200 and common-law negligence claims denied, Tower’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification claim granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim denied.
Plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed since defendants failed to demonstrate that they lacked notice of a hazardous condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall on a staircase in the building they owned and managed (see Griffin v. New York City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 202 [1st Dept 2005]). A manager for defendant owners corporation testified that he performed daily inspections of staircases in the building to determine whether there were any defects requiring repairs. In light of these regular inspections and plaintiff’s testimony that he noticed the defective condition of the step two weeks before the accident occurred, triable issues of fact exist whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition (see Vidor v. 6 Jones St. Assoc., LLC, 85 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2011]).
