Opinion
2012-08-22
Berta BABITSKAYA, appellant, v. MOSVIDEOFILM RUSSIA, INC., et al., defendants, N. Mayflower, Inc., et al., respondents.
Karasik Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Alexander Karasik of counsel), for appellant. DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Paul L. Felicione of counsel), for respondent N. Mayflower, Inc.
Karasik Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Alexander Karasik of counsel), for appellant. DeSena & Sweeney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Paul L. Felicione of counsel), for respondent N. Mayflower, Inc.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Glenn A. Kaminska and Nicholas M. Cardascia of counsel), for respondent Ocean Travel, Inc.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 7, 2011, which granted the separate motions of the defendants N. Mayflower, Inc., and Ocean Travel, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
“In a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant's negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries would be based on speculation” ( Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 A.D.3d 810, 810, 909 N.Y.S.2d 543;see Califano v. Maple Lanes, 91 A.D.3d 896, 897, 938 N.Y.S.2d 140;Louman v. Town of Greenburgh, 60 A.D.3d 915, 916, 876 N.Y.S.2d 112). Here, the defendants N. Mayflower, Inc. (hereinafter Mayflower), and Ocean Travel, Inc. (hereinafter Ocean), established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, in which she testified that she did not know what had caused her to fall ( see Califano v. Maple Lanes, 91 A.D.3d at 897, 938 N.Y.S.2d 140;McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 1067, 933 N.Y.S.2d 617;Capasso v. Capasso, 84 A.D.3d 997, 923 N.Y.S.2d 199;Rajwan v. 109–23 Owners Corp., 82 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 919 N.Y.S.2d 385;Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 A.D.3d at 811, 909 N.Y.S.2d 543;Costantino v. Webel, 57 A.D.3d 472, 869 N.Y.S.2d 179). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of Mayflower and Ocean for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.