Opinion
2017–08456 Index No. 17329/14
11-28-2018
Zenona SKOTNIK, Appellant, v. ST. FRANCES DE CHANTAL R.C. CHURCH, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel, New York), for appellant. Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage, N.Y. (Keri A. Wehrheim of counsel), for respondents.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel, New York), for appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage, N.Y. (Keri A. Wehrheim of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Paul Wooten, J.), dated June 15, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants St. Frances De Chantal R.C. Church and Resources of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens which was for summary judgment dismissing the second amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant St. Frances De Chantal R.C. Church.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an interior set of stairs near the front altar inside premises known as St. Frances De Chantal R.C. Church (hereinafter the defendant church), located in Brooklyn. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the fall. After issue was joined, the defendant church and the defendant Resources of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens (hereinafter together the defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the second amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant church.
In support of the motion, the defendant church established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Gani v. Avenue R. Sephardic Congregation, 159 A.D.3d 873, 874, 72 N.Y.S.3d 561 ; Priola v. Herrill Bowling Corp. , 150 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 52 N.Y.S.3d 635 ; Califano v. Maple Lanes, 91 A.D.3d 896, 897–898, 938 N.Y.S.2d 140 ; McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp. , 89 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 933 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; 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, 811, 909 N.Y.S.2d 543 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant church.
MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.