Cohen v. A.C.E. Rest. Grp. of N.Y., LLC

Full title: Arlene P. Cohen, et al., appellants, v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jun 29, 2016

140 A.D.3d 1111 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5113

33 N.Y.S.3d 764

Opinion

2015-09062

06-29-2016

Arlene P. Cohen, et al., appellants, v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group of New York, LLC, et al., respondents.

Joseph B. Fruchter, Hauppauge, NY (Robert A. Levey of counsel), for appellants. Camhi & Min, LLC, Mineola, NY (Jarad Lewis Siegel of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.

ROBERT J. MILLER SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ. (Index No. 6207/13)

Joseph B. Fruchter, Hauppauge, NY (Robert A. Levey of counsel), for appellants.

Camhi & Min, LLC, Mineola, NY (Jarad Lewis Siegel of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 4, 2015, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Arlene P. Cohen (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly sustained injuries when, at a Houlihan's Restaurant in Farmingdale, she stepped off of a carpeted area onto a tile floor, her left foot slid out from underneath her, and she landed flat on her back. The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, subsequently commenced this action. They alleged that at the time of the accident, the defendants were in possession and control of the premises, and were responsible for its maintenance and repair. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the injured plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which she was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Williams v Vines, 128 AD3d 1056; Grossi v Ralph Aievoli & Son, Inc., 125 AD3d 803; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 106 AD3d 972). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

BALKIN, J.P., MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur. ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court