Bottiglieri v. Wheeler

38 A.D.3d 818, 832 N.Y.S.2d 639
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated April 24, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall (see Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]; Arbusto v Amerada Hess Corp., 16 AD3d 527, 528 [2005]; Dapp v Larson, 240 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs expert submitted in op[819] position to the motion was based on speculation and was therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Tower Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 630, 631 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bottiglieri v. Wheeler, 38 A.D.3d 818, 832 N.Y.S.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

38 A.D.3d 818 (Bottiglieri v. Wheeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patrick v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
77 A.D.3d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Denicola v. Costello
44 A.D.3d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)