Humphrey v Merivil

Humphrey v Merivil 2013 NY Slip Op 05799 Decided on September 11, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 11, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
PETER B. SKELOS
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2012-04291
(Index No. 8413/10)

[*1]Victoria Humphrey, appellant,

v

Monique Merivil, et al., respondents.




DeToffol & Associates, New York, N.Y. (David J. DeToffol of
counsel), for appellant.
Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby
of counsel), for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 6, 2012, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped on a platform and thereafter fell down an exterior stairway on premises owned by the defendants, her landlords.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Costantino v Webel, 57 AD3d 472, 472; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427, 427). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted expert evidence that the step risers and treads did not comply with various sections of, inter alia, the New York City Building Code. However, the plaintiff's assertion that these alleged stairway defects proximately caused her accident is based on sheer speculation (see Thompson v Commack Multiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929, 930-931; Kaplan v Great Neck Donuts, Inc., 68 AD3d 931, 932; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d at 427; Grob v Kings Realty Assocs., 4 AD3d 394, 395; Glorioso v Schnabel, 253 AD2d 787, 788), and is, in fact, contradicted by the record.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, CHAMBERS and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court