Batista v New York City Tr. Auth.
2009 NY Slip Op 07195 [66 AD3d 433]
October 8, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


Luis Batista, Respondent,
v
New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Stuart M. Rissoff, Garden City (William R. Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

The assertion of plaintiff's expert that there were defects in the staircase on which plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proximate cause, because there is no evidence connecting plaintiff's fall to those defects (Kane v Estia Greek Rest., 4 AD3d 189 [2004]; see also Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.