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.
Mary REILLY, appellant, v. CARROLLWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (La Cava, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On January 2, 2003, the plaintiff slipped and fell on wooden steps along a walkway leading down from her condominium unit to the parking lot of her condominium complex. She alleged that she fell on ice that had formed due to water accumulating in a depression on a warped step; that step allegedly had been warped for some time. In response to the defendant's prima facie showing that it neither created the complained-of condition nor had notice of it, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a safety expert, William Marletta, who concluded that the ice accumulated on that step due to a recurrent dangerous condition. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, her expert's affidavit was conclusory and speculative. There is no proof in the record supporting the expert's claim that the rain that fell prior to the plaintiff's fall accumulated and froze on the allegedly warped portion of the step. Furthermore, there is no meteorological proof as to what the outdoor temperature was prior to the plaintiff's fall nor how long, if at all, it was at or below the freezing point. Finally, the plaintiff's expert's affidavit was internally contradictory as to how the water could accumulate on that step, even assuming that it was warped in the manner in which the expert claimed it was. Thus, the affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Reagan v. Hartsdale Tenants Corp., 27 A.D.3d 716, 813 N.Y.S.2d 153; Coyne v. Talleyrand Partners, L.P., 22 A.D.3d 627, 802 N.Y.S.2d 513, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 705, 812 N.Y.S.2d 34, 845 N.E.2d 466; cf. Uhlinger v. Gloversville Enlarged School Dist., 19 A.D.3d 780, 796 N.Y.S.2d 437).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 05, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)