Court Opinion

ID: 5811579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:48:11.497136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:52.384670
License: Public Domain

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated June 11, 2009, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the apparatus the plaintiff was using was not defective and that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Slattery v O’Shea, 46 AD3d *1115669 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.