From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-29

Anthony McFADDEN, appellant, v. 726 LIBERTY CORP., respondent.

Frederic A. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Elefterakis & Elefterakis, P.C. [Nicholas Elefterakis], of counsel), for appellant. Russo, Keane & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas F. Keane, Fern Flomenhaft, and Theresa C. Villani of counsel), for respondent.


Frederic A. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Elefterakis & Elefterakis, P.C. [Nicholas Elefterakis], of counsel), for appellant. Russo, Keane & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas F. Keane, Fern Flomenhaft, and Theresa C. Villani of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), entered October 1, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘[A] plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the [subject] 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’ ” ( Alabre v. Kings Flatland Car Care Ctr., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 924 N.Y.S.2d 174, quoting Rajwan v. 109–23 Owners Corp., 82 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 919 N.Y.S.2d 385; see Capasso v. Capasso, 84 A.D.3d 997, 998, 923 N.Y.S.2d 199; Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 A.D.3d 810, 909 N.Y.S.2d 543). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall ( see Capasso v. Capasso, 84 A.D.3d at 998, 923 N.Y.S.2d 199; Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 A.D.3d at 811, 909 N.Y.S.2d 543). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562–564, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; McCord v. Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co., 8 A.D.3d 634, 636, 779 N.Y.S.2d 542).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, LOTT and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Anthony McFADDEN, appellant, v. 726 LIBERTY CORP., respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
933 N.Y.S.2d 617
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8733

Citing Cases

Dennis v. Lakhani

The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the defendants appeal. The defendants established their prima…

Khanimov v. McDonald's Corp.

The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of 82 Court's motion which was for summary judgment…