NOLAN v. ONONDAGA COUNTY (2009)

 Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell in an arena owned by defendants.   According to plaintiff, she tripped over a ramp that protruded into the aisle where she was walking.   Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint inasmuch as defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that the ramp was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's fall (see Hunley v. University of Rochester Strong Mem. Hosp., 294 A.D.2d 923, 741 N.Y.S.2d 770;  Dodge v. City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency, 286 A.D.2d 902, 730 N.Y.S.2d 902).   Contrary to the contention of defendants, the testimony of plaintiff at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that she does not specifically recall tripping over the ramp and acknowledging that she might have fallen for a reason unrelated to the ramp is insufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Hunley, 294 A.D.2d 923, 741 N.Y.S.2d 770;  Dodge, 286 A.D.2d 902, 730 N.Y.S.2d 902;  cf. McGill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 53 A.D.3d 1077, 861 N.Y.S.2d 887).   In any event, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion by submitting evidence establishing that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the protruding ramp, thereby rendering any other potential cause of her fall “sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” (Artessa v. City of Utica, 23 A.D.3d 1148, 1148, 803 N.Y.S.2d 858;  see Schneider v. Kings Hwy. Hosp. Ctr., 67 N.Y.2d 743, 744, 500 N.Y.S.2d 95, 490 N.E.2d 1221;  see also Foreman v. Coyne Textile Servs. of Buffalo, 284 A.D.2d 912, 726 N.Y.S.2d 514).   We have considered defendants' remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: