Cognetta v. Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC
This text of Cognetta v. Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC (Cognetta v. Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Cognetta v Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 04398
July 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Donna Cognetta, appellant,
v
Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 15, 2026
2023-10911, (Index No. 152359/21)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Lara J. Genovesi
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Krentsel Guzman Herbert, LLP (Horn Appellate Group, Brooklyn, NY [Scott T. Horn and Christen Giannaros], of counsel), for appellant.
Eustace, Prezioso, Yapchanyk & Yang, New York, NY (Christopher M. Yapchanyk 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, Richmond County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), dated November 2, 2023. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In 2021, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained after she tripped and fell as a result of an alleged crack in a sidewalk. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to identify what caused her to fall without resorting to speculation. In an order dated November 2, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
"'Ordinarily, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a trip-and-fall [or slip-and-fall] case has the burden of establishing that it did not create the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. However, a defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation'" (Tam v Blake Realty, LLC, 242 AD3d 1037, 1038, quoting Mitgang v PJ Venture HG, LLC, 126 AD3d 863, 863-864). "[A] plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the 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" (Rivera v J. Nazzaro Partnership, L.P., 122 AD3d 826, 827; see Tam v Blake Realty, LLC, 242 AD3d at 1038).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint by submitting a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition testimony, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation (see Diaz v City of New York, 190 AD3d 940, 941; Mallen v Dekalb Corp., 181 AD3d 669, 670). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of the [*2]accident (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). "Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation" (Diaz v City of New York, 190 AD3d at 941 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Osmolska v Giuseppa Morreale Family Trust, 230 AD3d 594, 595).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.
BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cognetta v. Hylan Plaza 1339, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cognetta-v-hylan-plaza-1339-llc-nyappdiv-2026.