Gilbert Munoz, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. City-Wide Asphalt Paving Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant

Gilbert Munoz, Plaintiff, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. City-Wide Asphalt Paving Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant. [603 NYS2d 858] [MAJORITY] —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered, on or about July 1, 1993, which denied third-party defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Unresolved questions concerning the specific surface and/or object which allegedly precipitated plaintiffs fall and injury, and whether third-party defendant could have caused or contributed to the alleged mishap, preclude a grant of summary judgment. That third-party defendant’s paving work was deemed satisfactory by an inspector nine months prior to the accident does not eliminate the possibility that a latent defect may have caused the accident (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 AD2d 922). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.