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.
Salvatore DeForte, et al., respondents, v. Greenwood Cemetery, appellant.
Argued—January 9, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated September 21, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff Salvatore DeForte (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell on the defendant's premises. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that the injured plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion.
In a premises liability case, a plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the accident is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant's negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries would be based on speculation (see Deputron v. A & J Tours, Inc., 106 AD3d 944; Laskowski v. 525 Park Ave. Condominium, 93 AD3d 822). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff, which demonstrated that he could not identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation (see Capasso v. Capasso, 84 AD3d 997; Hartman v. Mountain Val. Brew Pub., 301 A.D.2d 570; Barretta v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 278 A.D.2d 262). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of our determination, it is not necessary to review the parties' remaining contentions.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, SGROI and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2012–11164 (Index No. 9347 /10)
Decided: February 13, 2014
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)