Opinion
2011-11-15
Mayaline NOEL, et al., respondents,v.STARRETT CITY, INC., appellant.
Brody, Benard & Branch, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mary Ellen O'Brien of counsel), for appellant.Stefano A. Filippazzo, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated October 7, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff Mayaline Noel (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) fell from an interior staircase of a building owned by the defendant. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the fall. By order dated October 7, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall ( see Scott v. Rochdale Vil., Inc., 65 A.D.3d 621, 883 N.Y.S.2d 726; Kletke v. GOS Corp., 51 A.D.3d 875, 858 N.Y.S.2d 342; Birman v. Birman, 8 A.D.3d 219, 777 N.Y.S.2d 310). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Although the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from an engineer who claimed that the staircase violated certain provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the plaintiffs presented no evidence connecting these alleged violations to the injured plaintiff's fall. Therefore, “it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations were a proximate cause of the accident” ( Reiff v. Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 A.D.3d 1015, 1015, 864 N.Y.S.2d 175; see Guiterrez v. Iannacci, 43 A.D.3d 868, 841 N.Y.S.2d 377; Birman v. Birman, 8 A.D.3d at 220, 777 N.Y.S.2d 310; Grob v. Kings Realty Assoc., 4 A.D.3d 394, 395, 771 N.Y.S.2d 384). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.