Opinion
Submitted June 14, 2000
August 15, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Copat Construction appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 20, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Jacobowitz, Garfinkel Lesman (Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N Y [James K. O'Sullivan] of counsel), for appellant.
Butler, Fitzgerald Potter, New York, N.Y. (David K. Fiveson of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over a defective sidewalk. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted proof in admissible form that it had not performed any work on the subject sidewalk. Thus, the appellant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the respondents failed to proffer evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact. Therefore, summary judgment should have been granted (see, Aversano v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 437; Soto v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 544; Abbenante v. Tyree Co., 228 A.D.2d 529; Hovi v. City of New York, 226 A.D.2d 430).