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.
Louis J. FOX, et al., respondents, v. WATERMILL ENTERPRISES, INC., etc., et al., appellants, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Watermill Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Watermill Inn, Scotto's Smithtown Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Watermill, Scotto's Smithtown Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Café Bravissimo, and Katsaros Brothers Realty, LLC, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The plaintiff Louis J. Fox allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell on a step while descending a stairway at the appellants' restaurant. The appellants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting Fox's deposition testimony that he did not know what caused him to trip and fall. (see Sanchez v. City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 487, 758 N.Y.S.2d 824; Hartman v. Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 A.D.2d 570, 754 N.Y.S.2d 31). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of an engineering expert whose opinion that the accident was proximately caused by the appellants' negligence was, among other things, conclusory and failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Rosario v. Trump Mgt., 7 A.D.3d 504, 775 N.Y.S.2d 578).
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: June 06, 2005
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)