| Martone v Shields |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02105 [71 AD3d 840] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tara Martone, Appellant, v Donald Shields, Respondent,et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Donna M. Brautigam of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), dated November 3, 2008, whichgranted the motion of the defendant Donald Shields for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Donald Shields (hereinafter the defendant) established his entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not know what caused her tofall (see Reiff v Beechwood BrownsRd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]; Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d 219[2004]; Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failedto submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The expert affidavit submitted by theplaintiff in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whetherthe staircase at issue violated any applicable codes or industry standards (see Pappas v Cherry Cr., Inc., 66AD3d 658, 659 [2009]; Ryan vKRT Prop. Holdings, LLC, 45 AD3d 663, 664-665 [2007]; Meehan v David J. Hodder & Son,Inc., 13 AD3d 593, 594 [2004]).
In any event, there was no evidence connecting any of the allegedly unsafe conditions to theplaintiff's fall (see Reiff v BeechwoodBrowns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]; Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3dat 990-991; Guiterrez v Iannacci,43 AD3d 868 [2007]; Lissauer vShaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427 [2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d at 220;Teplitskaya v 3096 Owners Corp., 289 AD2d 477 [2001]). Contrary to the plaintiff'scontention, the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298NY 76 [1948]) does not apply to this case since the plaintiff and the defendant are on an equalfooting as to their access to knowledge of the events which caused the plaintiff's injuries (seeKuravskaya v Samjo Realty Corp., 281 AD2d 518 [2001]; Gayle v City of NewYork, 256 AD2d 541, 542 [1998]). The plaintiff is not relieved of the obligation to providesome proof from which negligence can reasonably be inferred, and she failed to submit evidencesufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard (see DeLuca v Cerda, 60 AD3d 721, 722 [2009]; Seery v Mulholland, 41 AD3d829, 830 [2007]; Blanco v Oliveri, 304 AD2d 599, 600 [2003]; Lynn vLynn, [*2]216 AD2d 194, 195 [1995]). Rivera, J.P.,Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.