Filed Date: 1/26/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The plaintiff alleged that he was attempting to gain access to the roof of a bus, in the course of performing maintenance, to close the cover of a condenser located at the top of the bus,
GGNA established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall (see Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 63 AD3d 870 [2009]; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]; Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434 [2006]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]; Oettinger v Amerada Hess Corp., 15 AD3d 638 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, under the circumstances, a determination that the alleged hazardous condition of the floor was a proximate cause of his accident would be based on sheer speculation (see Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 63 AD3d 870 [2009]; Oettinger v Amerada Hess Corp., 15 AD3d 638 [2005]; Grob v Kings Realty Assoc., 4 AD 3d 394 [2004]).
This Court has the authority to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the Supreme Court (see Surace v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 861, 862 [2009]; Madero v Pizzagalli Constr. Co., 62 AD3d 670, 672-673 [2009]; DiLernia v Khan, 62 AD3d 644, 646 [2009]). GGNA’s codefendant, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based only on the contention that it was an out-of-possession landlord which had no duty to maintain the premises at which the plaintiff fell. Upon search