| Bishop v Marsh |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01075 [59 AD3d 483] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Christine Bishop, Appellant, v Laurie Marsh et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Sobel & Kelly, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (Christopher J. Roess of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 2, 2007, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting the deposition testimony of the parties which established the absence of evidence of adefective or dangerous condition (seePuma v New York City Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 585 [2008]; DeSantis v Lessing's, Inc., 46 AD3d742 [2007]; Golba v City of NewYork, 27 AD3d 524 [2006]; Przybyszewski v Wonder Works Constr., 303AD2d 482 [2003]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of factas to the existence of a dangerous or defective condition (see generally Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Although the plaintiff alleged that the lighting at thelocation of her fall was inadequate at the time of the incident, she neither testified at herdeposition nor stated in her affidavit submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motionthat she tripped as a result of inadequate illumination (see DiGeorgio v Morotta, 47 AD3d 752, 752-753 [2008]; Leib v Silo Rest., Inc., 26 AD3d359, 360 [2006]; Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.