Opinion
2019–10124 Index No. 30541/17
04-06-2022
G. O., etc., appellant, v. TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, respondent.
Antin, Ehrlich & Epstein, LLP, New York, NY (Jeffrey S. Antin and Anthony V. Gentile of counsel), for appellant. Goetz Schenker Blee & Weiderhorn, LLP, New York, NY (Lisa De Lindsay of counsel), for respondent.
Antin, Ehrlich & Epstein, LLP, New York, NY (Jeffrey S. Antin and Anthony V. Gentile of counsel), for appellant.
Goetz Schenker Blee & Weiderhorn, LLP, New York, NY (Lisa De Lindsay of counsel), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas J. Zugibe, J.), dated August 23, 2019. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated August 20, 2019, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, by her father and natural guardian, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging that the defendant failed to construct and maintain a "stone seating area ... in a safe, proper and secure manner." The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and in an order dated August 20, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The court issued a judgment upon the order which is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Peters v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 431, 431–432, 876 N.Y.S.2d 59 ; Dabnis v. West Islip Pub. Lib., 45 A.D.3d 802, 803, 846 N.Y.S.2d 331 ; Stevenson v. Flore Fence Corp., 262 A.D.2d 550, 550, 691 N.Y.S.2d 340 ; Koppel v. Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 191 A.D.2d 415, 416, 594 N.Y.S.2d 310 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Rivas–Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 A.D.3d 556, 558, 883 N.Y.S.2d 552 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, ZAYAS and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.