Kijanka v. Orleans Community Health

Kijanka v Orleans Community Health 2026 NY Slip Op 05871 October 9, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. SALLY A. KIJANKA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v ORLEANS COMMUNITY HEALTH AND MEDINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 9, 2026 588 CA 25-00474 Present: Whalen, P.J., Lindley, Curran, Ogden, And Greenwood, JJ. MATTAR, P.C., WILLIAMSVILLE (MATTHEW J. KAISER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. GIBSON, MCASKILL & CROSBY, LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. WILLETT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered February 20, 2025, in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she allegedly fell in a parking lot outside defendant Medina Memorial Hospital. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that plaintiff was unable to establish the cause of her fall without engaging in speculation. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting that motion, and we now reverse. " 'In a slip and fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of [their] fall' without engaging in speculation" (Dixon v Superior Discounts & Custom Muffler, 118 AD3d 1487, 1487 [4th Dept 2014]; see Weed v Erie County Med. Ctr., 187 AD3d 1568, 1568 [4th Dept 2020]; Rinallo v St. Casimir Parish, 138 AD3d 1440, 1441 [4th Dept 2016]). Here, defendants submitted on their motion, inter alia, plaintiff's deposition testimony, wherein plaintiff clearly testified that the cause of her fall was a large shallow pothole on the side of the parking lot nearest the street that contained a smaller, deeper hole that caught her foot and caused her to fall forward (see Weed, 187 AD3d at 1568; see also Withers v Roblee, 242 AD3d 1640, 1641 [4th Dept 2025]; Altinel v John's Farms, 113 AD3d 709, 710 [2d Dept 2014]; cf. Conners v LMAC Mgt. LLC, 189 AD3d 2071, 2072 [4th Dept 2020]). Inasmuch as defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion, we need not consider the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers (see Dixon, 118 AD3d at 1488; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Entered: October 9, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court