Michelle Tyson v Danbury Mall Limited Partnership

Tyson v Danbury Mall Ltd. Partnership 2006 NY Slip Op 01612 [27 AD3d 458] March 7, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Michelle Tyson, Appellant,
v
Danbury Mall Limited Partnership et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated July 16, 2004, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured at premises located in Connecticut, owned by the defendant Danbury Mall Limited Partnership and managed by the defendant Genesee Management Co., Inc., in the course of chasing an individual whom she suspected of having taken her wallet. Applying Connecticut law to the facts of this case, as it properly did (see Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519 [1994]), the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating, through evidence in admissible form, that they provided sufficient security and that the conduct of the individual who stole the plaintiff's wallet, which gave rise to the plaintiff's injuries, was not foreseeable (see Antrum v Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 40 Conn Supp 343, 346, 499 A2d 807, 809 [1985]). Since the plaintiff failed, in opposition to the motion, to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, the motion was properly granted (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.