• Retailer Entitled to Summary Judgment Because Plaintiff Failed to Identify the Cause of Her Fall.
  • April 27, 2017 | Author: Adam C. Calvert
  • Law Firm: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. - New York Office
  • Hoovis v. Grand City 99 Cents Store, Inc., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 295, 2017 NY Slip Op 00292 (2d Dep’t 2017)

    The appellate division held that a retailer was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without engaging in speculation. The defendant pointed to testimony from the plaintiff that she was not sure what she tripped on. The plaintiff’s counsel countered with testimony from the plaintiff and her daughter that she “must have” caught her foot on a box of water sticking out from a larger stack of water because she knew that her foot “hit something.” Ultimately, the court focused on the plaintiff’s testimony that she did not know what caused her fall, thereby disregarding the other testimony from the plaintiff that she assumed she must have tripped on the box of water.