Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kathleen AZZARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPER 8 MOTELS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered November 13, 2007, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
During a July 9, 2005 stay at defendants' Super 8 Motel in Cobbleskill, New York, plaintiff stepped out of her motel room shower onto the bath mat, slipped and fell, thereby sustaining injuries to her left wrist. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that both the tile floor of the bathroom area and the cotton floor mat supplied by defendants were unreasonably dangerous because neither had a nonskid surface.
The motion court properly found that defendants made a prima facie showing that the accident was not attributable to a defect in the floor or the bath mat. Plaintiff, in opposition, failed to meet her burden of identifying any common law, statutory or relevant industry standard imposing on hotel owners the duty to supply non-skid surfacing in the bathtub area (see Lunan v. Mormile, 290 A.D.2d 249, 735 N.Y.S.2d 534 [2002]; Portanova v. Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 270 A.D.2d 757, 704 N.Y.S.2d 380 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 765, 716 N.Y.S.2d 39, 739 N.E.2d 295 [2000] ). Nor did plaintiff present any competent evidence of any defect in either the bathroom flooring material or in the bath mat (see Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 971-972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796 [1994] ). The affidavit from plaintiff's expert, who never visited the accident site or examined the bath mat, referred to industry standards which were inapplicable to the bathroom. Moreover, this affidavit, submitted solely in response to defendants' motion, was purely speculative and conclusory (see Di Sanza v. City of New York, 11 N.Y.3d 766, 867 N.Y.S.2d 26, 896 N.E.2d 661 [2008]; Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp., 99 N.Y.2d 542, 754 N.Y.S.2d 195, 784 N.E.2d 68 [2002]; Matos v. Challenger Equip. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 502, 857 N.Y.S.2d 77 [2008] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 19, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)