Majority
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated October 30, 2014, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of his or her fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall (see Ash v City of New York, 109 AD3d 854 [2013]; Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d 810 [2010]; Louman v Town of Greenburgh, 60 AD3d 915 [2009]; Karwowski v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 826 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of the accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Leventhal and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Ash v. City of New York 109 AD3d 854 at 855 p. 970
- Alabre v. Kings Flatland Car Care Center, Inc. 84 AD3d 1286 p. 970
- Louman v. Town of Greenburgh 60 AD3d 915 at 916 p. 970
- Costantino v. Webel 57 AD3d 472 p. 970
- Manning v. 6638 18th Avenue Realty Corp. 28 AD3d 434 p. 970
- Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 77 AD3d 810 p. 970
- Karwowski v. New York City Transit Authority 44 AD3d 826 p. 970