Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Rodriguez v. Cafaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 25, 2005

17 A.D.3d 658; 794 N.Y.S.2d 113; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Taveras v. 1149 Webster Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
He Shang Wang v. 82-90 Broadway Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Bardales v. VAM Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Mitthauer v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rivera v. Port Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Kaplan v. Great Neck Donuts, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Lissauer v. Shaarei Halacha, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Jackson v. Fenton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Lee v. J & R Electronic, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Bottiglieri v. Wheeler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Denicola v. Costello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Plowden v. Stevens Partners, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Woodward v. Mendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Sampino v. Crescent Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Hennington v. Ellington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated May 24, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell down an outdoor stairway located on certain premises owned by the defendant’s decedent. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he did not know what caused him to fall. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiffs deposition testimony wherein the plaintiff admitted that he did not know the cause of his accident (see Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]; Burnstein v Mandalay Caterers, 306 AD2d 428 [2003]; Sanchez v City of New York, 305 AD2d 487 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). While the plaintiff testified at his deposition that the second step on the stairway was “chipped” and that the handrail was “loose,” “a determination that these alleged defects, rather than a misstep or loss of balance, were [the] proximate cause of the plaintiffs accident would be based on sheer speculation” (Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.