CLARK v. BRIDGEPORT PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph Pastoressa, J.), dated February 3, 2022.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On July 28, 2019, the plaintiff was allegedly injured while he was a passenger on the defendant's ferry vessel.  The plaintiff walked through a self-closing door to traverse from the ferry's stairwell to the car deck.  The plaintiff's left ring finger was in the space between the hinge and the door jamb when the door closed and the tip of his finger became severed.  In January 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant.  In July 2021, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the door at issue was not in a defective condition.  In an order dated February 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the door at issue was not in a defective condition (see E.W. v. City of New York, 179 A.D.3d 747, 748, 117 N.Y.S.3d 79;  Donnelly v. St. Agnes Cathedral Sch., 106 A.D.3d 773, 773–774, 964 N.Y.S.2d 262;  DeCarlo v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, 36 A.D.3d 749, 750, 828 N.Y.S.2d 532).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The assertion of the plaintiff's expert that the side of the door facing the car deck should have been equipped with a finger guard was not supported by citation to any regulations or industry customs, and the plaintiff's expert's affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the door was in a defective condition (see Donnelly v. St. Agnes Cathedral Sch., 106 A.D.3d at 774, 964 N.Y.S.2d 262;  Lezama v. 34–15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 A.D.3d 560, 561, 792 N.Y.S.2d 123).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, GENOVESI and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.