Costantino v Webel
2008 NY Slip Op 09550 [57 AD3d 472]
December 2, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


Danielle Costantino, Appellant,
v
Steven Francis Webel et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Bragoli & Associates, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for appellant.

Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated January 30, 2008, which granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Proximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, by inference from thecircumstances of the accident; however, mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when therecould have been many possible causes, is fatal to a cause of action (see Oettinger v Amerada Hess Corp., 15AD3d 638 [2005]). In this case, the defendants made a prima showing of entitlement to judgmentas a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall withoutengaging in speculation (see Manning v 663818th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434 [2006]; Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth.,300 AD2d 336 [2002]; Barnes v Di Benedetto, 294 AD2d 655 [2002]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of NewYork, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The affidavit of her expert, which alleged that unsafe conditions inthe doorway where the plaintiff fell violated various provisions of the building code, could not create areasonable inference of causation in the absence of evidence connecting the alleged violations to theaccident (see Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd.Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]; Reed v Piran Realty [*2]Corp., 30 AD3d319 [2006]). A determination that the alleged building code violations proximately caused theplaintiff's fall, rather than a misstep or loss of balance, would be mere speculation (see Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37AD3d 427 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.