Ghany v. Hossain

65 A.D.3d 517, 884 N.Y.S.2d 125
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 4, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 517 (Ghany v. Hossain) 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
Ghany v. Hossain, 65 A.D.3d 517, 884 N.Y.S.2d 125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 2, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s decedent allegedly fell down a flight of stairs leading from the first floor to the basement inside the defendants’ two-family house, sustaining serious injuries that led to his death. After discovery was completed, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Here, the defendants satisfied their burden and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d 394, 395 [2004]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of an expert witness, who opined, in pertinent part, that the condition of the subject stairs and the upper portion of the handrail were substantial factors in causing the decedent’s injuries. Even if the stairway and handrail were defective, as the expert opined, the Supreme Court properly determined that his conclusion linking the alleged defects to the decedent’s fall was purely speculative (see Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d at 395). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kelly v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2026 NY Slip Op 30657(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Baldwin v. Windcrest Riverhead, LLC
123 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hod v. Fields
111 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Litvinoff v. Kaur
102 A.D.3d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Knudsen v. Mamaroneck Post No. 90
94 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Fotiatis v. Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp.
70 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.3d 517, 884 N.Y.S.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghany-v-hossain-nyappdiv-2009.