Visconti v. 110 HUNTINGTON ASSOCIATES, LP
| Decision Date | 01 May 2000 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | MARGARET T. VISCONTI, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>110 HUNTINGTON ASSOCIATES, L.P., Respondent. |
Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly fell while dancing at the defendant's night club. She thereafter commenced this action alleging that she fell due to the existence of a dangerous condition on the defendant's premises. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
The plaintiff was unable to identify or describe the condition which caused her fall and, instead, speculated that she must have slipped on food residue. "Where a plaintiff is unable to give a specific reason for the cause of an alleged accident [he or she] may not recover based on pure speculation" (Barland v Cryder House, 203 AD2d 405). We note in this regard that the Supreme Court properly rejected the 1995 written statement of a witness submitted by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff's counsel withheld that statement from the defendant in contravention of an order of the court, and assured the defendant that the statement would not be used in the litigation. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to establish the cause of the plaintiff's accident (see, Dapp v Larson, 240 AD2d 918).
The plaintiff also failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of any such condition (see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capasso v. Capasso
...Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d 434, 814 N.Y.S.2d 178; Curran v. Esposito, 308 A.D.2d 428, 764 N.Y.S.2d 209; Visconti v. 110 Huntington Assoc., 272 A.D.2d 320, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's affidavit, in which she identified......
-
Jean-Charles v. Carey
...recover based on pure speculation (see Hunt v Meyers, 63 A.D.3d 685, 879 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2d Dept 2009]: Visconti v 110 Huntington Assoc, 272 A.D.2d 320, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2d Dept 2000]; Barland v Cryder House, 203 A.D.2d 405, 610 N.Y.S.2d 554 [2d Dept 1994]). Moreover, the mere happening of a......
-
Jean-Charles v. Carey
...recover based on pure speculation (see Hunt v Meyers, 63 A.D.3d 685, 879 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2d Dept 2009]: Visconti v 110 Huntington Assoc, 272 A.D.2d 320, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2d Dept 2000]; Barland v Cryder House, 203 A.D.2d 405, 610 N.Y.S.2d 554 [2d Dept 1994]). Moreover, the mere happening of a......
-
Karris v. Simon
...when there is only a bare possibility that his or her fall was caused by the defendant's negligence (see Visconti v 110 Huntington Assoc, 272 A.D.2d 320, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2d Dept 2000]; Borland v Cryder House, 203 A.D.2d 405, 610 N.Y.S.2d 554 [2d Dept], Iv denied 84 N.Y.2d 947, 621 N.Y.S.2......