Lee v. J & R Electronic, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. J & R Electronic, Inc.

38 A.D.3d 501, 830 N.Y.S.2d 519

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 501 (Lee v. J & R Electronic, 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

Lee v. J & R Electronic, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 501, 830 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated November 1, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff allegedly fell while descending an interior staircase in the defendants’ premises. The defendants establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff wherein she stated that she did not know what had caused her to fall (see Fox v Watermill Enters., Inc., 19 AD3d 364 [2005]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Miller, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Lifson, 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, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated November 1, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff allegedly fell while descending an interior staircase in the defendants’ premises. The defendants establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff wherein she stated that she did not know what had caused her to fall (see Fox v Watermill Enters., Inc., 19 AD3d 364 [2005]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Miller, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 501, 830 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-j-r-electronic-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack