NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
May 19, 2009
KATHLEEN AZZARO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
SUPER 8 MOTELS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J. ), entered November 13, 2007, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli, Freedman, JJ.
During a July 9, 2005 stay at defendants' Super 8 Motel in Cobbleskill, New York, plaintiff stepped out of her motel room shower onto the bath mat, slipped and fell, thereby sustaining injuries to her left wrist. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that both the tile floor of the bathroom area and the cotton floor mat supplied by defendants were unreasonably dangerous because neither had a nonskid surface.
The motion court properly found that defendants made a prima facie showing that the accident was not attributable to a defect in the floor or the bath mat. Plaintiff, in opposition, failed to meet her burden of identifying any common law, statutory or relevant industry standard imposing on hotel owners the duty to supply non-skid surfacing in the bathtub area (see Lunan v Mormile, 290 AD2d 249 ; Portanova v Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 270 AD2d 757 , lv denied 95 NY2d 765 . Nor did plaintiff present any competent evidence of any defect in either the bathroom flooring material or in the bath mat (see Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 971-972 ). The affidavit from plaintiff's expert, who never visited the accident site or examined the bath mat, referred to industry standards which were inapplicable to the bathroom. Moreover, this affidavit, submitted solely in response to defendants' motion, was purely speculative and conclusory (see DiSanza v City of New York, 11 NY3d 766 ; Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 ; Matos v Challenger Equip. Corp., 50 AD3d 502 ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.