| Bohan v F.R.P. Sheet Metal Contr. Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00490 [58 AD3d 781] |
| January 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Edward Bohan et al., Appellants, v F.R.P. Sheet MetalContracting Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Brian Greenwood of counsel), forrespondent F.R.P. Sheet Metal Contracting Corporation. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, Williston Park, N.Y. (Christine M. Gibbons and John A. Beyrerof counsel), for respondent RC Dolner, Inc. Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy Malinowof counsel), for respondent J.T. Falk & Company, LLC. Wilson, Bave, Conboy, Cozza & Couzens, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (James A. Rogers ofcounsel), for respondent Five Star Electric Corp.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.),dated May 30, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant RC Dolner, Inc.,which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it andgranted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendants F.R.P. Sheet MetalContracting Corporation, J.T. Falk & Company, LLC, and Five Star Electric Corp., which werefor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The defendants F.R.P. Sheet Metal Contracting Corporation, RC Dolner, Inc., J.T. Falk &Company, LLC, and Five Star Electric Corp. (hereinafter the defendants) established, primafacie, [*2]their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Inopposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the expertaffidavit submitted by the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In his affidavit, theexpert did not sufficiently "identify any specific industry standard upon which he relied," nor didhe supply any specific statutory or code violations (Milligan v Sharman, 52 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2008]; see Lombardo v Cedar Brook Golf &Tennis Club, Inc., 39 AD3d 818, 819 [2007]; Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d 522, 523 [2005];Veccia v Clearmeadow Pistol Club, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]; Cicero v SeldenAssoc., 295 AD2d 391, 392 [2002]). Thus, the expert's affidavit was insufficient to defeatthe defendants' entitlement to summary judgment (see Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444,451 [1997]; Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 972 [1994]; Veccia v ClearmeadowPistol Club, 300 AD2d at 472).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contention. Florio, J.P.,Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31556(U).]