Opinion
May 3, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied appellant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and granted plaintiff's motion to supplement her bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Jamie C. Rosenberg, for plaintiff-respondent.
Brian J. Isaac, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Lerner, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Marlow, JJ.
While mere speculation regarding causation is inadequate to sustain a cause of action (see, Segretti v. Shorenstein Co., E., L.P., 256 A.D.2d 234, 235), the record contains evidence showing that, at approximately 8:15 AM, plaintiff slipped on an oily substance near a paper shredder that had been serviced on the previous day by one of appellant's employees. Although appellant claims that its employee applied only a small amount of lubricant and that the slippery condition was most likely attributable to an employee of defendant Citicorp Investment Services, appellant's hypothesis as to how the oil came to be present on the floor where plaintiff slipped is premised on mere supposition and thus does not suffice to meet its burden as movant for summary judgment or permit us to conclude as a matter of law that appellant was not in some measure responsible for the complained of hazard (see, Rose v. Da Ecib USA, 259 A.D.2d 258).
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to supplement her bill of particulars since the amendment, which introduced no new causes of action or theories of recovery but merely amplified the pleadings following disclosure, was not prejudicial to appellant.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.