Opinion
2014-03027, Index No. 13274/10.
04-01-2015
George SEVERIN, et al., respondents, v. T BURGER, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.
White & McSpedon, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph W. Sands of counsel), for appellant. Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP, Patchogue, N.Y. (James G. Rosner of counsel), for respondents.
White & McSpedon, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph W. Sands of counsel), for appellant.
Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP, Patchogue, N.Y. (James G. Rosner of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant T Burger, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), entered January 21, 2014, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff George Severin (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly fell while walking down a stairway to the basement of a restaurant located at 67 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn. At the time of the accident the restaurant was operated by the defendant T Burger, LLC (hereinafter T Burger). The Supreme Court denied that branch of T Burger's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. T Burger appeals.
Contrary to T Burger's assertion on appeal, it did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since it failed to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation (see Martino v. Patmar Props., Inc., 123 A.D.3d 890, 999 N.Y.S.2d 449 ; Palahnuk v. Tiro Rest. Corp., 116 A.D.3d 748, 983 N.Y.S.2d 603 ; cf. Deputron v. A & J Tours, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 944, 945, 964 N.Y.S.2d 670 ). Since T Burger failed to meet its prima facie burden, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.