From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connor v. Lakeview Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 2003
306 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07984

Argued May 15, 2003.

June 30, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated July 31, 2002, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Joseph J. Tock, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Andrew L. Spitz and Peter J. Reynolds of counsel), for appellants.

LaRose LaRose, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Keith V. LaRose of counsel), for respondent Lakeview Associates, LLC.

Gary A. Cusano, Tarrytown, N.Y. (George R. Dieter of counsel), for respondent JJ Sisca Associates.

Fixler Associates, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (James E. Romer of counsel), for respondent Daniel Jewelers.

Harms, Mahon, Finneran, Gialleonardo Whelan, Elmsford, N.Y. (Michael J. Mahon of counsel), for respondent Cutting Edge Contracting Corp.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Brian O'Connor allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a walkway at the Lakeview Plaza Shopping Center. The plaintiffs argue that a dangerous condition was created by the defendants since the ice was formed when water dripped onto the walkway from a leak in the overhang, and that a previous leak had been improperly repaired some months before this incident at the same location.

In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that there was circumstantial evidence that the injuries sustained by Brian O'Connor were caused by the defendants' negligence. Since the plaintiffs' submissions did not render other plausible causes of the accident sufficiently remote, the Supreme Court correctly determined that no triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants caused the injuries ( see Gayle v. City of New York, 92 N.Y.2d 936; Schneider v. Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 N.Y.2d 743; Nigri v. City of New York, 294 A.D.2d 477; Dwoskin v. Burger King Corp., 249 A.D.2d 358).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Connor v. Lakeview Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 2003
306 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

O'Connor v. Lakeview Associates, LLC

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN O'CONNOR, et al., appellants, v. LAKEVIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 30, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 858

Citing Cases

Esposito v. Reed

In opposition, plaintiffs do not raise triable issues of fact. Plaintiffs' submissions in opposition fail to…

Tocci v. Tocci

Brew Pub, supra; see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923; Zuckerman v City of New…