Summary
In Birman v. Birman, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to establish the cause of her fall was fatal to her case and that the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the plaintiff's deposition testimony that she was unable to identify the cause of her accident.
Summary of this case from Quito v. PCS Mgmt., LLCOpinion
2003-11167.
Decided June 1, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated December 1, 2003, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Efrom J. Gross, West Hempstead, N.Y. (Ephrem Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles Kaufman, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Ann K. Kandel and Michael G. Kruzynski of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff's failure to establish the cause of her fall was fatal to her case ( see Amadio v. Pathmark Stores, 253 A.D.2d 834). The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the plaintiff's deposition testimony that she was unable to identify the cause of her accident.
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff alleged that she would not have fallen had the staircase been equipped with handrails. In addition, the plaintiff's expert opined in an affidavit that the subject staircase violated several provisions of the New York City Administrative Code contributing to an unsafe condition. However, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence connecting any allegedly unsafe condition to her fall ( see Grob v. Kings Realty Assoc., 4 A.D.3d 394; see also Blanco v. Oliveri, 304 A.D.2d 599). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RITTER, J.P., TOWNES, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.