| Bolde v Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00793 [70 AD3d 617] |
| February 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Betty Bolde et al., Appellants, v Borgata Hotel Casino &Spa, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated April 1, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Betty Bolde allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell while walkingfrom the valet parking area leading to the entrance of the defendant, Borgata Hotel Casino &Spa. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint. We affirm.
The defendant met its burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) bydemonstrating that the injured plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident withoutengaging in speculation (see Hunt vMeyers, 63 AD3d 685 [2009]; Costantino v Webel, 57 AD3d 472 [2008]; Tejada v Jonas, 17 AD3d 448[2005]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of theaccident (see Manning v 6638 18thAve. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434, 435 [2006]; Tejada v Jonas, 17 AD3d at 448).The Supreme Court correctly determined that the injured plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to thedefendant's motion presented feigned issues designed to avoid the consequences of her earlierdeposition testimony, and thus was insufficient to defeat the motion (see Hunt v Meyers,63 AD3d at 685-686; Denicola vCostello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]; Tejada v Jonas, 17 AD3d at 448-449).Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion.
The plaintiffs' remaining arguments are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.