Opinion
2002-02881
Argued December 16, 2002.
January 21, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated February 11, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for appellant.
Epstein, Grammatico, Gann Frankini, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Diana T. Bishop and Oliver Raymond Voorhees of counsel), for respondents.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
After the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with evidence showing that the defendants either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Carter v. National Amusements, 287 A.D.2d 589; Trabolse v. Rizzo, 275 A.D.2d 320; Rodriguez v. Notre Dame Academy of Staten Is., 274 A.D.2d 509, 510; Goodwin v. Knolls at Stony brook Homeowners Assn., 251 A.D.2d 451). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff merely speculated that the defendants created the icy condition by negligently shoveling the steps where he fell. His theory was not supported by any evidentiary proof in admissible form, and therefore, the motion was properly granted (see Trabolse v. Rizzo, supra; Gustavsson v. County of Westchester, 264 A.D.2d 408, 409; Gittler v. K.G.H. Realty Corp., 258 A.D.2d 504; Davis v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 356, 358).
FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.