From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaFemina v. Brambell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-11059.

December 1, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated October 9, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the separate motion of the defendants Eddison Brambell (s/h/a Edison Brambell), Larayne Enterprises, and North Franklin Management Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Dell Little, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John S. McDonnell and Anne Marie Caradonna of counsel), for appellants.

Richard J. Baldwin, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Neil H. Angel of counsel), for respondents Eddison Brambell (s/h/a Edison Brambell), Larayne Enterprises, and North Franklin Management Corp. Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for respondent Incorporated Village of Hempstead.

Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

At her deposition, the injured plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on a portion of a sidewalk used as a driveway by the abutting landowner defendants Eddison Brambell (s/h/a Edison Brambell), Larayne Enterprises, and North Franklin Management Corp. However, the defect she identified in a photograph as the one she tripped on was not in the area where she claimed she had been walking. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding the nature and location of the alleged defect to allow a jury to consider this issue without having to resort to conjecture or speculation ( see e.g. Visconti v. 110 Huntington Assocs., 272 A.D.2d 320; Moody v. Woolworth Co., 288 A.D.2d 446; McGee v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 483). Since the cause of the accident was speculative, summary judgment was properly granted to all of the defendants.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

McGINITY, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

LaFemina v. Brambell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

LaFemina v. Brambell

Case Details

Full title:MARY ANN LaFEMINA, ET AL., Appellants, v. EDISON BRAMBELL, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 1, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 795

Citing Cases

Zalko v. Sunrise Adult Health Care Ctr.

The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law ( see Zuckerman v. City of…

Tocci v. Tocci

The Toccis have established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The pre-trial deposition…