| Harbour v Oceanside Inst. Indus., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05363 [74 AD3d 1023] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gloria Harbour, Respondent, v Oceanside InstitutionalIndustries, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Slater & Sgarlato, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert A. Sgarlato and Thomas J. Cappello ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated May 21, 2009, which denied its motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
While on the job at her place of employment, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries to herright knee when she steadied herself after her left foot "went under" a rectangular area matplaced on the lobby floor at the subject location. The plaintiff did not fall. The defendantsupplied area mats to the plaintiff's employer, including mats that were used in the lobby areawhere the plaintiff was injured.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant made a prima facie showing ofentitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320 [1986]). The defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff. Amongother things, she stated that just prior to the accident, she was looking "straight ahead" and shecould see the mat. Just before her foot was caught, she "didn't see anything special other than[her] foot getting caught." She did not know how the mat looked, except that she recalled that it"rolled over" as her foot went underneath it, and it "rolled back" after she steadied herself. Theplaintiff further testified that prior to the accident, she did not see any problem with the mat, andthat she did not know whether the mat was flat on the floor. The plaintiff was not aware ofanyone who witnessed the accident. Prior thereto, the plaintiff did not complain either to heremployer or to the defendant about the mats the defendant delivered.
The defendant also submitted the deposition testimony of its employee-driver who deliveredmats to the subject location in the relevant period of time. Among other things, he testified thatprior to the accident, he was not aware of any complaints about the mats used in the lobby.
In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triableissue of fact.[*2]
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.