| Nolan v Onondaga County |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03341 [61 AD3d 1431] |
| April 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Shannon Nolan, Respondent, v Onondaga County et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Germain & Germain, LLP, Syracuse (John J. Marzocchi of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), datedFebruary 11, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants' motion for summaryjudgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustainedwhen she tripped and fell in an arena owned by defendants. According to plaintiff, she trippedover a ramp that protruded into the aisle where she was walking. Supreme Court properly denieddefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint inasmuch as defendantsfailed to meet their initial burden of establishing that the ramp was not a proximate cause ofplaintiff's fall (see Hunley v University of Rochester Strong Mem. Hosp., 294 AD2d 923[2002]; Dodge v City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency, 286 AD2d 902 [2001]). Contraryto the contention of defendants, the testimony of plaintiff at a hearing pursuant to GeneralMunicipal Law § 50-h that she does not specifically recall tripping over the ramp andacknowledging that she might have fallen for a reason unrelated to the ramp is insufficient toestablish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Hunley, 294 AD2d 923[2002]; Dodge, 286 AD2d 902 [2001]; cf. McGill v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 53 AD3d 1077 [2008]). Inany event, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion by submittingevidence establishing that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the protruding ramp, therebyrendering any other potential cause of her fall "sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] juryto reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn fromthe evidence" (Artessa v City ofUtica, 23 AD3d 1148, 1148 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeSchneider v Kings Hwy. Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]; see also Foreman vCoyne Textile Servs. of Buffalo, 284 AD2d 912 [2001]). We have considered defendants'remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P.,Martoche, Centra, Pine and Gorski, JJ.