| Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00806 [70 AD3d 631] |
| February 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Margaret Fotiatis, Appellant, v Cambridge Hall TenantsCorp., Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered December 16, 2008, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it did not createthe condition that proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries (cf. Shindler v Warf, 66 AD3d 762 [2009]). The plaintiff fell on apublic roadway adjacent to the defendant's premises. She allegedly slipped and fell on a portionof a torn garbage bag and/or a banana peel protruding therefrom, that was hanging over the curbinto the roadway. The plaintiff alleged that the material was caused to be in the roadway as aconsequence of the manner in which the defendant stacked garbage bags on the sidewalk.
"Where the moving party has established prima facie that it is entitled to summary judgment,the party opposing the motion must demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trialof the action by admissible evidence, not mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation" (Leggiov Gearhart, 294 AD2d 543, 544 [2002]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact(see Xhika v Trizechahn RegionalPooling, LLC, 49 AD3d 719, 720 [2008]; Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d 394 [2004]; Teplitskayav 3096 Owners Corp., 289 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]; Deegan v 336 E. 50th St. TenantsCorp., 216 AD2d 59 [1995]). The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert in opposition to themotion was speculative and conclusory, and his opinion was not supported by empirical data orany relevant industry standard. Accordingly, the expert's affidavit was not sufficient to raise atriable issue of fact (see Ghany vHossain, 65 AD3d 517 [2009]; Rivas-Chirino v Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 AD3d 556, 558[2009]; Gover v Mastic Beach Prop.Owners Assn., 57 AD3d 729, 731 [2008]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal andLott, JJ., concur.