From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bosser v. Bay Rest. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-08957.

December 28, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered August 21, 2009, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Wooster Products, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and granted the separate motion of the defendant Bay Restoration Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Sacks and Sacks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellants.

Nanis Rinaldi, LLP, Astoria, N.Y. (William R. Kutner of counsel), for respondent Bay Restoration Corp.

Cerussi Spring, White Plains, N.Y. (Richard D. Bentzen of counsel), for respondent Wooster Products, Inc.

Before: Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs. "Although proximate cause can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury, mere speculation as to the cause of a fall, where there can be many causes, is fatal to a cause of action" ( Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434, 435 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and brackets omitted]; see Bolde v Borgata Hotel Casino Spa, 70 AD3d 617, 618; Louman v Town of Greenburgh, 60 AD3d 915, 916). Here, the defendants met their respective burdens of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injured plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his accident without engaging in speculation ( see Bolde v Borgata Hotel Casino Spa, 70 AD3d at 618; Louman v Town of Greenburgh, 60 AD3d at 916; Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d at 435). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Bolde v Borgata Hotel Casino Spa, 70 AD3d at 618; Louman v Town of Greenburgh, 60 AD3d at 916; Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d at 435).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions either have been rendered academic in light of our determination or are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.


Summaries of

Bosser v. Bay Rest. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Bosser v. Bay Rest. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BOSSER et al., Appellants, v. BAY RESTORATION CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 28, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9878
913 N.Y.S.2d 570