| Kloepfer v Aslanis |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03638 [106 AD3d 956] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lynn Kloepfer, Appellant, v Pantelis Aslanis et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Ryan, Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T.Ryan of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.),dated February 23, 2012, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured in a house owned by the defendants when heslipped or tripped and fell while descending the staircase leading from his first-floorapartment to the basement.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by demonstrating, through the plaintiff's deposition testimony, that he could notidentify what caused him to fall (see Dennis v Lakhani, 102 AD3d 651, 652 [2013]; Miles v County of Dutchess,85 AD3d 878, 878 [2011]; Aguilar v Anthony, 80 AD3d 544, 545 [2011]; Plowden v Stevens Partners,LLC, 45 AD3d 659 [2007]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiffsubmitted an affidavit from an engineer who asserted that the staircase violated severalprovisions of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, includinga provision requiring a railing on the open side of the staircase, the plaintiff presented noevidence connecting these alleged violations to his fall. Thus, it would be speculative toassume that these alleged violations were a proximate cause of the accident (see Thompson v CommackMultiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929, 930 [2011]; Murphy v New York City Tr.Auth., 73 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2010]; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d1015, 1015-1016 [2008]; Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d at660).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Roman,JJ., concur.