Martirosyan v. Antreasyan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martirosyan v. Antreasyan

2017 NY Slip Op 6071, 153 A.D.3d 616, 57 N.Y.S.3d 404

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

DecidedAugust 9, 2017

Docket2016-07461

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6071 (Martirosyan v. Antreasyan) 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

Martirosyan v. Antreasyan, 2017 NY Slip Op 6071, 153 A.D.3d 616, 57 N.Y.S.3d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered June 14, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover for the personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell while walking down two steps in the backyard of the defendant’s house. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

In support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition and that the plaintiff’s accident was not caused by any defect in the steps (see Wilks v City of New York, 144 AD3d 673, 674-675 [2016]; Alexis v Motel Oasis, 143 AD3d 926, 927 [2016]; Zamor v Dirtbusters Laundromat, Inc., 138 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2016]; Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 AD3d 768, 770 [2015]; Lezama v 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 AD3d 560 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by the submission of her *617 expert’s affidavit, since “[e]xpert opinions which are speculative, conclusory, and unsubstantiated are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” (Reddy v 369 Lexington Ave. Co., L.P., 31 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered June 14, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover for the personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell while walking down two steps in the backyard of the defendant’s house. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

In support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition and that the plaintiff’s accident was not caused by any defect in the steps (see Wilks v City of New York, 144 AD3d 673, 674-675 [2016]; Alexis v Motel Oasis, 143 AD3d 926, 927 [2016]; Zamor v Dirtbusters Laundromat, Inc., 138 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2016]; Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 AD3d 768, 770 [2015]; Lezama v 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 AD3d 560 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by the submission of her *617 expert’s affidavit, since “[e]xpert opinions which are speculative, conclusory, and unsubstantiated are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” (Reddy v 369 Lexington Ave. Co., L.P., 31 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6071, 153 A.D.3d 616, 57 N.Y.S.3d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martirosyan-v-antreasyan-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack