| Humphrey v Merivil |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05799 [109 AD3d 792] |
| September 11, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Victoria Humphrey, Appellant, v Monique Merivilet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 6, 2012,which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped on a platform andthereafter fell down an exterior stairway on premises owned by the defendants, herlandlords.
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Costantino v Webel, 57AD3d 472, 472 [2008]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427, 427[2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffsubmitted expert evidence that the step risers and treads did not comply with varioussections of, inter alia, the New York City Building Code. However, the plaintiff'sassertion that these alleged stairway defects proximately caused her accident is based onsheer speculation (seeThompson v Commack Multiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929, 930-931 [2011]; Kaplan v Great Neck Donuts,Inc., 68 AD3d 931, 932 [2009]; Lissauer v Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37AD3d at 427; Grob v KingsRealty Assoc., 4 AD3d 394, 395 [2004]; Glorioso v Schnabel, 253AD2d 787, 788 [1998]), and is, in fact, contradicted by the record.
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.