Rozen v. Joan & Alan Bernikow Jewish Community Ctr. of Staten Is.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rozen v. Joan & Alan Bernikow Jewish Community Ctr. of Staten Is.

140 A.D.3d 1149, 33 N.Y.S.3d 767

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

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket2015-05095

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1149 (Rozen v. Joan & Alan Bernikow Jewish Community Ctr. of Staten Is.) 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

Rozen v. Joan & Alan Bernikow Jewish Community Ctr. of Staten Is., 140 A.D.3d 1149, 33 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 21, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff, a member of the defendant’s fitness center, allegedly was injured when she fell as she was attempting to descend from a treadmill. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries.

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Amico v Kasneci, 134 AD3d 969, 970 [2015]; Viviano v KeyCorp, 128 AD3d 811, *1150 812 [2015]; Defino v Interlaken Owners, Inc., 125 AD3d 717, 717-718 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 21, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff, a member of the defendant’s fitness center, allegedly was injured when she fell as she was attempting to descend from a treadmill. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries.

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Amico v Kasneci, 134 AD3d 969, 970 [2015]; Viviano v KeyCorp, 128 AD3d 811, *1150 812 [2015]; Defino v Interlaken Owners, Inc., 125 AD3d 717, 717-718 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1149, 33 N.Y.S.3d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozen-v-joan-alan-bernikow-jewish-community-ctr-of-staten-is-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack