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.
Joseph CAPUTO, appellant, v. Michael SPINDLER, respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Charles M. Troia, J.), dated February 2, 2017. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On August 20, 2013, the plaintiff, who was the defendant's guest inside a house owned by the defendant, fell down a staircase that led to the basement. The staircase was located behind a closed door. The plaintiff alleged that when he opened that door, he thought that he was entering a bathroom, and he fell down the staircase before he could locate the light switch on the wall of the staircase.
The plaintiff subsequently commenced this personal injury action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion was conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Buchholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 798 N.Y.S.2d 715, 831 N.E.2d 960; Zamor v. Dirtbusters Laundromat, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 31 N.Y.S.3d 130; Rivas–Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 A.D.3d 556, 558, 883 N.Y.S.2d 552; Salerno v. Street Retail, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 515, 516, 831 N.Y.S.2d 265).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.
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: 2017–02839
Decided: June 20, 2018
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)