Opinion
2003-02923.
Decided June 21, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 27, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Martin Druyan, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Susan S. You and H. Nicholas Goodman of counsel), for respondent Ruth Fleischmann.
Hoey, King, Toker Epstein, New York, N.Y. (Danielle M. Regan of counsel), for respondent Jeanne Fleischmann.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In opposition, there was no showing by the plaintiff that the theory of "inherent compulsion" is applicable here ( see Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 658). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.