From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caputo v. Spindler

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 20, 2018
162 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2017–02839 Index No. 101852/13

06-20-2018

Joseph CAPUTO, appellant, v. Michael SPINDLER, respondent.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lawrence Goldhirsch of counsel), for appellant. Gorton & Gorton, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas P. Gorton and John Gorton of counsel), for respondent.


Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lawrence Goldhirsch of counsel), for appellant.

Gorton & Gorton, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas P. Gorton and John Gorton of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Charles M. Troia, J.), dated February 2, 2017. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On August 20, 2013, the plaintiff, who was the defendant's guest inside a house owned by the defendant, fell down a staircase that led to the basement. The staircase was located behind a closed door. The plaintiff alleged that when he opened that door, he thought that he was entering a bathroom, and he fell down the staircase before he could locate the light switch on the wall of the staircase.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced this personal injury action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion was conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Buchholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 798 N.Y.S.2d 715, 831 N.E.2d 960 ; Zamor v. Dirtbusters Laundromat, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 31 N.Y.S.3d 130 ; Rivas–Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 A.D.3d 556, 558, 883 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; Salerno v. Street Retail, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 515, 516, 831 N.Y.S.2d 265 ).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Caputo v. Spindler

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jun 20, 2018
162 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Caputo v. Spindler

Case Details

Full title:Joseph Caputo, appellant, v. Michael Spindler, respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jun 20, 2018

Citations

162 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
162 A.D.3d 841
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4524

Citing Cases

Savitz v. Lido Knitting, Inc.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Expert opinions that are conclusory and…

Savitz v. Lido Knitting, Inc.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Expert opinions that are conclusory and…