Opinion
04-24-2017
Maria PRIOLA, appellant, v. HERRILL BOWLING CORP., doing business as Herrill Lanes, respondent.
Stanton, Guzman & Miller, LLP, Franklin Square, NY (Stacey Rinaldi Guzman of counsel), for appellant. Havkins, Rosenfeld, Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, New York, NY (Christopher G. Wosleger and Steven H. Rosenfeld of counsel), for respondent.
Stanton, Guzman & Miller, LLP, Franklin Square, NY (Stacey Rinaldi Guzman of counsel), for appellant.
Havkins, Rosenfeld, Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, New York, NY (Christopher G. Wosleger and Steven H. Rosenfeld of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered March 17, 2016, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell while bowling in a bowling alley owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
In a premises liability case such as this, involving a slip and fall allegedly caused by a dangerous condition, a plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant's negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries would be based on speculation (see Singh v. City of New York, 136 A.D.3d 641, 642, 24 N.Y.S.3d 407 ; Rivera v. J. Nazzaro Partnership, L.P., 122 A.D.3d 826, 827, 995 N.Y.S.2d 747 ). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall (see Califano v. Maple Lanes, 91 A.D.3d 896, 897–898, 938 N.Y.S.2d 140 ; McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp., 89 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 933 N.Y.S.2d 617 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.