Opinion
2002-02328
Argued March 25, 2003.
April 21, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered February 19, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Town of North Hempstead for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Certilman, Balin, Adler Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Christian Siragusa and Dominique Penson of counsel), for appellant.
Bonnie P. Chaikin, Manhasset, N.Y. (Linda B. Zuech of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Town of North Hempstead demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it neither created the alleged defective condition, caused the accident by its affirmative act of negligence, nor had prior written notice of the alleged defective condition of the sidewalk which caused the plaintiff's injury (see Hampton v. Town of North Hempstead, 298 A.D.2d 556; Arias v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 354, 355; Estrada v. City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 194, 195). Therefore it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not meet his burden.
The affidavit of an expert, a licensed professional engineer, submitted by the plaintiff, was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment because his opinion was speculative, conclusory, and unsubstantiated (see Masterson v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 591; Glorioso v. Schnabel, 253 A.D.2d 787, 788; Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School. Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the Town's notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and summary judgment was properly granted (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.