Eschenberg v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eschenberg v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.

31 A.D.3d 493, 817 N.Y.S.2d 531

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 11, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 493 (Eschenberg v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

Eschenberg v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 493, 817 N.Y.S.2d 531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J), entered January 24, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Kohl’s), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In response to Kohl’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff offered mere speculation as to the cause of the accident (see Grange v Jacobs, 11 AD3d 582 [2004]; Bradish v Tank Tech Corp., 216 AD2d 505 [1995]; Thomas v New York City Tr. Auth., 194 AD2d 663 [1993]). The plaintiffs unsubstantiated assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Covello, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J), entered January 24, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Kohl’s), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In response to Kohl’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff offered mere speculation as to the cause of the accident (see Grange v Jacobs, 11 AD3d 582 [2004]; Bradish v Tank Tech Corp., 216 AD2d 505 [1995]; Thomas v New York City Tr. Auth., 194 AD2d 663 [1993]). The plaintiffs unsubstantiated assertions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 493, 817 N.Y.S.2d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eschenberg-v-kohls-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack