Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.

McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1067; 933 N.Y.2d 617
McFadden v. 726 Liberty Corp.

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

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

*1068“ ‘[A] plaintiffs inability to identify the cause of the [subject] fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries would be based on speculation’ ” (Alabre v Kings Flatland Car Care Ctr., Inc., 84 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2011], quoting Rajwan v 109-23 Owners Corp., 82 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2011]; see Capasso v Capasso, 84 AD3d 997, 998 [2011]; Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d 810 [2010]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall (see Capasso v Capasso, 84 AD3d at 998; Patrick v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d at 811). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-564 [1980]; McCord v Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co., 8 AD3d 634, 636 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.