Turner v. Voros

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a premises liability action and dismissed the complaint. The court's majority held that the defendant established the absence of a dangerous or defective condition and that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation. Two justices dissented, concluding that the defendant's expert relied too heavily on building-code compliance and failed to establish that the unguarded steps and landing were reasonably safe.

Holdings

1. Defendant met his initial burden by submitting plaintiff's deposition testimony and an architectural expert affidavit establishing that the landing and steps were not dangerous or defective, complied with applicable codes, and that plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation.
2. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because her expert affirmation made conclusory and speculative assertions regarding both the existence of a dangerous condition and causation.
3. The majority held that defendant's evidence, considered as a whole, established the absence of a dangerous or defective condition; it rejected the dissent's characterization that the expert relied solely on code compliance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant established as a matter of law that no dangerous or defective condition existed at the location of plaintiff's fall and that plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation.
2. Whether plaintiff's opposing expert affirmation and other opposition papers raised a triable issue of fact concerning the existence of a dangerous condition or causation.
3. Whether summary judgment should be granted in defendant's favor in the premises-liability action.

Disposition

reversed