| Fredette v Town of Southampton |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03594 [95 AD3d 939] |
| May 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lee Adam Fredette, Appellant, v Town of Southampton etal., Defendants, and Ernest Sbaschnik et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Lynn A. Ingrao of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August18, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ernest Sbaschnik and ChristineA. Sbaschnik which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants Ernest Sbaschnik and Christine A. Sbaschnik (hereinafter the Sbaschnikdefendants) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by theirtestimony that their home was located near the east side of the trail on which the subjectmotorcycle accident occurred, while the accident occurred on the west side, that they did notplace concrete or other debris on the west side of the trail, and that they did not even enter thewest side of the trail until after the accident.
The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Mere surmise, suspicion,speculation, and conjecture are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall TenantsCorp., 70 AD3d 631 [2010]; Gelesko v Levy, 37 AD3d 528 [2007]; Massaro v Wellen Oil &Chem., 304 AD2d 538 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted their motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Dillon, J.P., Belen,Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.