SLATTERY v. SHEA (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 5, 2006, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 On his motion, the defendant met his burden of establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572), by demonstrating that the plaintiff, who was walking in the defendant's parking lot, and who allegedly slipped on ice and fell, was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Manning v. 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d 434, 435, 814 N.Y.S.2d 178;  Oettinger v. Amerada Hess Corp., 15 A.D.3d 638, 639, 790 N.Y.S.2d 693;  Garvin v. Rosenberg, 204 A.D.2d 388, 614 N.Y.S.2d 190).   In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of the accident (see Manning v. 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d at 435, 814 N.Y.S.2d 178;  Oettinger v. Amerada Hess Corp., 15 A.D.3d at 639, 790 N.Y.S.2d 693).   Moreover, even if the plaintiff had shown that she slipped on ice, the defendant demonstrated that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of such a condition in the parking lot (see Voss v. D & C Parking, 299 A.D.2d 346, 346-347, 749 N.Y.S.2d 76), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard as well (see Barretta v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 A.D.2d 262, 263, 717 N.Y.S.2d 333).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's motion (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.