Court Opinion

ID: 9820645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:26:58.570659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:39.009590
License: Public Domain

Tom, J.P., and Andrias, J.,
dissent in a memorandum by Andrias, J., as follows: The majority reverses the dismissal of the complaint against defendants A & K Convenience Store, Inc. (A & K) and 1149 Webster Realty Corp. (Webster). Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while exiting A & K’s convenience store, he twisted his ankle and fell as the result of a “dangerous and defective condition” on the ramp that led from the sidewalk to the entrance of the store. Webster owned the premises and A & K leased it.
Defendants satisfied their burden by submitting plaintiff’s deposition testimony establishing that he was unable to identify the cause of his fall without speculation (see Morrissey v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 464, 464 [1st Dept 2012]; Smith v City of New York, 91 AD3d 456, 456-457 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; Ash v City of New York, 109 AD3d 854 [2d Dept 2013]).
*498Plaintiff testified that he had no problems entering or exiting the store on two prior occasions, had made no complaints about the ramp, and did not know whether anyone else had complained about it. While plaintiff stated that he “stepped like on a hole” and that he “stepped [on] something that was not fine to set down the foot,” like something that was “not solid” or “correct,” he conceded that he never saw what caused him to twist his ankle or trip either before or after the accident and that he “didn’t see what [he] was stepping on.” While plaintiff “suppose [d]” that it was the ramp that caused his fall, when asked “what about the ramp, other than supposing, makes you believe the ramp was involved in the accident,” he responded, “There wasn’t anything else.” When asked what led him to believe that the floor was not solid, plaintiff responded, “Because I fell.” Thus, defendants established prima facie that plaintiff could only speculate as to the cause of his accident (Acunia v New York City Dept. of Educ., 68 AD3d 631, 631-632 [1st Dept 2009] [“Although a plaintiff bears no burden to identify precisely what caused his slip and fall, mere speculation about causation is inadequate to sustain the cause of action”]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658, 658 [2d Dept 2005] [“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 plaintiff’s accident would be based on sheer speculation” [internal quotation marks omitted] [alteration in original]).
In opposition, plaintiff, whose description of his fall changed at his second deposition from that he “stepped on something that was not solid” or that was “like ... a hole” to he “stepped on something that felt unleveled and irregular,” failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of his fall (see Thompson v Commack Multiplex Cinemas, 83 AD3d 929 [2d Dept 2011]; Goldfischer v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 63 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2009]). Plaintiff testified at his depositions that he saw no garbage, debris, holes, cracks, fractures, defects, or liquid on the ramp either before or after the fall and his submissions in opposition to the motion did not demonstrate the existence of any defect or connect it to his fall by anything other than speculation.
Plaintiff’s new theory, raised for the first time on appeal, that the accident was the result of “optical confusion” should not be considered (see Davila v City of New York, 95 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, this theory is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact, as plaintiff testified that he was *499looking straight ahead and did not pay attention to the ramp (see Franchini v American Legion Post, 107 AD3d 432, 432 [1st Dept 2013]).
Accordingly, I would affirm the order dismissing the complaint.