Smith v. Jesadan Meat Corp.

120 A.D.3d 1332, 991 N.Y.S.2d 805
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 2014
Docket2013-01609
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1332 (Smith v. Jesadan Meat 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.

Bluebook
Smith v. Jesadan Meat Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1332, 991 N.Y.S.2d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 28, 2012, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Jesadan Meat Corp., doing business as Associated Supermarket, and Nostrand Associates, also known as Nostrand Assoc. Jed Issacs, Ftr., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

“In a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiffs inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” (Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d 810, 810 [2010]; see McFadden v 726 Liberty Corp., 89 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2011]; Alabre v Kings Flatland Car Care Ctr., Inc., 84 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2011]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see 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]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court.

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barone v. Concert Service Specialists, Inc.
127 A.D.3d 1119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Calciano v. Tarragon Corp.
125 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.3d 1332, 991 N.Y.S.2d 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jesadan-meat-corp-nyappdiv-2014.