Opinion
Submitted February 14, 2001.
March 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Theodore Thomas and Antigone Thomas appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated January 7, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (William J. Balletti of counsel), for appellants.
Pokorny, Schrenzel Pokorny, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark E. Cohen of counsel), for plaintiff -respondent.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellants are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. In opposition, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants made an alleged repair to the sidewalk (see, Lobel v. Rodco Petroleum Corp., 233 A.D.2d 369; Padawer v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 509; Kuller v. Potashner, 268 A.D.2d 563; Davi v. Alhamidy, 207 A.D.2d 859). The contention that the sidewalk was repaired was purely speculative (cf., Kozma v. Biberfeld, 264 A.D.2d 817). Therefore, the motion should have been granted.