Case Name: Syliva Webster, Appellant, v. Supermarkets General Corp., Doing Business as Pathmark, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-11-07
Citations: 209 A.D.2d 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: Syliva Webster, Appellant, v Supermarkets General Corp., Doing Business as Pathmark, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
Syliva Webster, Appellant, v Supermarkets General Corp., Doing Business as Pathmark, Respondent.
[619 NYS2d 577]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 13, 1993, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The complaint does not contain any allegations upon which a viable cause of action may be based (see, Trott v Merit Dept. Store, 106 AD2d 158). The plaintiffs attempt to assert a new cause of action by resort to the bill of particulars is improper (see, Lewis v Village of Deposit, 40 AD2d 730, affd 33 NY2d 532). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Lawrence, J. P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.