LANGGOOD, GERALD v. CARROLS, LLC

I respectfully dissent. Contrary to the conclusion of the majority, I conclude that Carrols, LLC (defendant) failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the rug on which plaintiff allegedly tripped was not in an unreasonably dangerous condition (see Grefrath v DeFelice, 144 AD3d 1652, 1653 [2016]; Muto v Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist, 68 AD3d 1789, 1789 [2009]; cf. O’Rourk v Menorah Campus, Inc., 13 AD3d 1154, 1154 [2004]). “ ‘[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability ... is…