McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.
This text of 89 A.D.3d 1067 (McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.) 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.
Opinion
[1068]*1068“ ‘[A] plaintiffs inability to identify the cause of the [subject] fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries would be based on speculation’ ” (Alabre v Kings Flatland Car Care Ctr., Inc., 84 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2011], quoting Rajwan v 109-23 Owners Corp., 82 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2011]; see Capasso v Capasso, 84 AD3d 997, 998 [2011]; Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d 810 [2010]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall (see Capasso v Capasso, 84 AD3d at 998; Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d at 811). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-564 [1980]; McCord v Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co., 8 AD3d 634, 636 [2004]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 A.D.3d 1067, 933 N.Y.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-726-liberty-corp-nyappdiv-2011.