Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.

18 A.D.3d 498, 794 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 2005·Published

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Trans), met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs offered only mere speculation as to the cause of the infant plaintiff’s fall (see Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]; Earle v Channel Home Ctr., 158 AD2d 507 [1990]). In any event, Trans did not owe a duty to the infant plaintiff (see generally Marasco v C.D.R. Elees. Sec. & Surveillance Sys. Co., 1 AD3d 578 [2003]).

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants Trans Service Corp. and Transervice Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Trans), met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs offered only mere speculation as to the cause of the infant plaintiff’s fall (see Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388 [1994]; Earle v Channel Home Ctr., 158 AD2d 507 [1990]). In any event, Trans did not owe a duty to the infant plaintiff (see generally Marasco v C.D.R. Elees. Sec. & Surveillance Sys. Co., 1 AD3d 578 [2003]).

The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp., 18 A.D.3d 498, 794 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

18 A.D.3d 498 (Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related