Opinion
2018–03810 Index No. 10664/14
08-07-2019
Dianne FORTUNE, Appellant, v. RARITAN BUILDING SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondent.
Roger V. Archibald PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Fishman McIntyre Berkeley Levine Samansky P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mitchell B. Levine and Peter J. Murano of counsel), for respondent.
Roger V. Archibald PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Fishman McIntyre Berkeley Levine Samansky P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mitchell B. Levine and Peter J. Murano of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On November 28, 2011, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on the floor in a grocery store, where she was employed at the time. The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against the defendant, a contractor hired by nonparty Whole Foods Market (hereinafter Whole Foods) to clean various Whole Foods stores, including the store where the subject accident occurred. After joinder of issue and discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmovant (see Bravo v. Vargas , 113 A.D.3d 579, 978 N.Y.S.2d 307 ; Green v. Quincy Amusements, Inc. , 108 A.D.3d 591, 592, 969 N.Y.S.2d 489 ; Stukas v. Streiter , 83 A.D.3d 18, 918 N.Y.S.2d 176 ), the evidence relied upon by the defendant in support of its motion, which included a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition, established the defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Pankratov v. 2935 OP, LLC , 160 A.D.3d 757, 757, 75 N.Y.S.3d 208 ; Gani v. Avenue R Sephardic Congregation , 159 A.D.3d 873, 72 N.Y.S.3d 561 ; Priola v. Herrill Bowling Corp. , 150 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 52 N.Y.S.3d 635 ; Califano v. Maple Lanes , 91 A.D.3d 896, 897–898, 938 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, AUSTIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.