Falah v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-03594. |
| Parties | MERVAT FALAH, Appellant, v. STOP & SHOP COMPANIES, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
The plaintiff was three months pregnant when she allegedly slipped and fell on coffee beans on the floor of the defendants' supermarket. The plaintiff was transported to the hospital after her fall, and on the following day she suffered a miscarriage. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action seeking damages for the emotional distress she had suffered as a result of the miscarriage. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff would be unable to prove that the fall was the proximate cause of her miscarriage. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted the notarized affidavit of a physician in Ohio who averred, based upon his review of the hospital records, that the plaintiff's miscarriage was causally related to her fall. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff could not establish that her miscarriage was caused by the fall because the physician's affidavit was not in proper evidentiary form. We reverse.
As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the defendants were required to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). As a general rule, a party cannot establish its entitlement to summary judgment merely by pointing to gaps in the opponent's proof (see Restrepo v Rockland Corp., 38 AD3d 742 [2007]; Picart v Brookhaven Country Day School, 37 AD3d 798 [2007]; Pappalardo v Long Is. R.R. Co., 36 AD3d 878 [2007]; McArthur v Muhammad, 27 AD3d 532 [2006]). Since the defendants failed to affirmatively offer any evidentiary proof that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midfirst Bank v. Agho
...reliant upon out-of-state witnesses ( see Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477; Falah v. Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 638, 838 N.Y.S.2d 639), motions in actions brought pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a) ( see Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 38 A.D.3d 522, 832 N.Y.S......
-
Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Hartford Ins. Co.
...Dept., 2007]; Smith v. Allstate ins. Co ., 38 AD3d 522, 832 N.Y.S.2d 587 [NY A.D. 2nd Dept., 2007]; Falah v. Stop & Shop Cos. Inc., 41 AD3d 638, 838 N.Y.S.2d 639 [NY A.D.2d Dept., 2007) ]; Sparaco v. Sparaco, 309 A.D.2d 1029, 765 N.Y.S.2d 6683 [NY AD3d Dept., 2003]; Nandy v. Albany Med. Ctr......
-
Alban v. Cornell Univ.
...may not establish entitlement to summary judgment merely by pointing to gaps in the opponent's proof. Falah v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 41 A.D.3d 638, 838 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2d Dept.2007).In sum, defendant has not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment because its own ......
-
Jahn v. King St. Home, Inc.
...in light of the COVID-19 health emergency and resultant shutdowns (see generally CPLR 2001, 2309 [c]; Falah v Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 638, 638-639 [2d Dept 2007]; Sparaco v Sparaco, 309 A.D.2d 1029, 1031 [2d Dept. 2003], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 702 [2004]). Turning to plaintiffs' subst......