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.
Bradley DESTELHORST et al., Appellants, v. ATLANTIC DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON, LLC, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered January 10, 2005 in Delaware County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff Bradley Destelhorst (hereinafter plaintiff) and his wife, derivatively, brought this action claiming that defendant created a one foot in diameter puddle of motor oil on the garage floor at Nova Bus Company (plaintiff's employer) in which he slipped and was injured. Defendant moved for summary judgment and met its initial burden of establishing that it “ ‘neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition’ ” (Smith v. J.B.H., Inc., 300 A.D.2d 874, 874, 752 N.Y.S.2d 134 [2002], quoting Altieri v. Golub Corp., 292 A.D.2d 734, 734-735, 741 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2002]; see Kappes v. Cohoes Bowling Arena, 2 A.D.3d 1034, 1034-1035, 768 N.Y.S.2d 251 [2003] ) through affidavits which established that (1) no employee of defendant had been at Nova's premises for three weeks prior to the date of injury, (2) the only employee of defendant present on the date of plaintiff's slip was a technician who performed predelivery inspections on the air conditioning units of two buses, (3) as the oil level in each compressor of the units was appropriate, no motor oil or any other liquid was utilized by said technician in performing the inspections, and (4) plaintiff observed technicians employed by others at the premises that day. In opposition, plaintiffs argue that because defendant's employee could add oil to the compressors, if it was needed, the employee must have had some oil with him and may have inadvertently spilled it. However, no triable issue of fact is demonstrated by these unsupported and speculative assertions (see Smith v. J.B.H., Inc., supra at 875, 752 N.Y.S.2d 134; Williams v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 274 A.D.2d 649, 650, 710 N.Y.S.2d 714 [2000] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
MUGGLIN, J.
MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN and ROSE, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 17, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)