| Murphy v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04559 [73 AD3d 1143] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Deborah Murphy, Appellant, v New York City TransitAuthority et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated March 19, 2009, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a stairway in a subwaystation. The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of lawby submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff that she was unable to identifythe cause of her fall (see Douse v City of New York, 70 AD3d 764 [2010]; Kaplan vGreat Neck Donuts, Inc., 68 AD3d 931 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010];Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]; Denicola vCostello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]).
The plaintiff's submissions in opposition did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Douse vCity of New York, 70 AD3d 764 [2010]; Kaplan v Great Neck Donuts, Inc., 68AD3d 931 [2009]; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008];Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]). The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of anengineer who stated that the stairway violated certain provisions of the New York State BuildingCode and that, as a result, the front edge or nosing of the stairway treads had become shiny,worn, and slippery. The plaintiff, however, did not know what caused her fall, and did not claimthat her foot slipped on the worn and slippery nosing. Thus, it would be speculative to find thatthe alleged violations noted in the engineer's report proximately caused the plaintiff's fall (seeDenicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990 [2007]). Additionally, the report of the plaintiff's expert,which was based on an inspection of the stairway conducted almost 2½ years after theplaintiff's accident, was speculative in the absence of evidence establishing that the conditionsnoted during the expert's inspection existed at the time of the plaintiff's fall (see Deutsch vCity of New York, 69 AD3d 523 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly grantedthe defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Covello,Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.