| Noel v Starrett City, Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08332 [89 AD3d 906] |
| November 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mayaline Noel et al., Respondents, v Starrett City, Inc.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Stefano A. Filippazzo, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated October 7, 2010, which denied its motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff Mayaline Noel (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) fell from an interior staircase of abuilding owned by the defendant. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively,commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of thefall. By order dated October 7, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaintby demonstrating that the injured plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Scott v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 65 AD3d621 [2009]; Kletke v GOS Corp.,51 AD3d 875 [2008]; Birman vBirman, 8 AD3d 219 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Although the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from an engineer who claimed that the staircaseviolated certain provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Administrative Code of the City ofNew York, the plaintiffs presented no evidence connecting these alleged violations to the injuredplaintiff's fall. Therefore, "it would be speculative to assume that these alleged violations were aproximate cause of the accident" (Reiff vBeechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015, 1015 [2008]; see Guiterrez v Iannacci, 43 AD3d 868[2007]; Birman v Birman, 8 AD3d at 220; Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d 394, 395 [2004]). Accordingly,the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.