| Morales v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 09149 [101 AD3d 623] |
| December 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Altagracia Morales, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and CSC Holdings, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents. CFG Cable Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. |
—[*1]
McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
David M. Schwarz, Dix Hills, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered February 18, 2011, which denied defendants CSC Holdings, Inc.'s and Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and third-party defendant CFG Cable Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against CSC Holdings, Inc., Cablevision Systems NYC Corporation and CFG Cable Corporation and dismissing the third-party complaint.
The evidence submitted by CSC Holdings, Cablevision and CFG that they had not received any complaints regarding work performed in connection with the installation of a cable conduit in 1992 was uncontroverted. The inspection conducted by plaintiff's expert, approximately 14 years after the work was performed, did not constitute probative evidence of negligence by the movants, as his inferences as to the quality of the work performed by these [*2]defendants were speculative. Because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the liability of the movants, the motions for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.