Dalinedesroches v. LazardDalinedesroches v. Lazard
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff‘s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff was unable to explain what caused her to trip and fall (see Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]), and proof that the stairway in question was not defective. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of the accident or the existence of any defective condition on the stairway (see Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434, 435 [2006]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.