Scivoletti v. New York Mercantile Exch., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Scivoletti v. New York Mercantile Exch., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …that the ladder's fall could have at p. 327 ⚠ not in text
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Perez v. Parkside Terrace, L.P. (nyappdiv, 2026-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. Parkside Terrace, L.P. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Accordingly, since is it "just as likely" that the ladder's fall could have "been caused by some other factor," a "determination by the trier of fact" that a screw caused the ladder to fall "would be based on sheer speculation" ( Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. , 38 AD3d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Thus, it is "just as likely that" her accident was "caused by some other factor, such as a misstep or loss of balance," rather than defendants' negligence in cleaning and maintaining the bowling alley, meaning that "any determination by the trier of fact as to the cause of the accident would be based upon sheer speculation" ( Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. , 38 AD3d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]; see also Acunia v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 68 AD3d 631, 632 [1st Dept 2009]["the fact that a floor is slippery by reason …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Public Adm'r of Queens County v. 124 Ridge LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Since the accident may well have been caused by a misstep or loss of balance, rather than by a defective or improperly secured ladder, any determination by the trier of fact as to the cause of the accident would be based upon speculation ( see Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. , 38 AD3d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canzoneri v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
A coworker also testified that a photograph depicting the location of plaintiff's accident showed garbage and debris "[e]verywhere." Thus, it is not "just as likely" in this case that plaintiff's accident was "caused by some other factor, such as a misstep or loss of balance," nor would any verdict in plaintiff's favor on causation be based "upon sheer speculation" ( Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. , 38 AD3d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2007] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]; see Ash , 109 AD3d at 855 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aberger v. Camp Loyaltown, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
This Court has held that "[s]ince it is just as likely that the accident could have been caused by some other factor, such as a misstep or loss of balance, any determination by the trier of fact as to the cause of the accident would be based upon sheer speculation" ( Scivoletti v NY Mercantile Exch., Inc. , 38 AD3d 326, 327 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spiconardi v. Macy's East, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although mere compliance with minimum industry standards is, at most, some evidence to be considered and is not a shield to liability (see Feiner v Calvin Klein, Ltd., 157 AD2d 501, 502 [1990]), the conclusory allegations raised by plaintiffs’ expert, absent evidence that the product violated other relevant industry standards or accepted practices, or statistics showing the frequency of injuries arising out of the use of the product (see Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc., 38 AD3d 326, 327 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]; Cornwell v Otis El.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Scivoletti
v.
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 15, 2007.
38 A.D.3d 326
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered January 10, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motions and cross motions by defendants New York Mercantile Exchange, Cushman & Wakefield, A.J. Contracting Company and Space/Management Programs for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ submissions presented a prima facie defense, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiffs. The opinion of plaintiffs’ expert, that the decrease of the coefficient of friction between the tread of the step and its nose “impaired” safety, lacked sufficient probative force to constitute prima facie evidence that the steps in the pit were not reasonably safe for their intended use, or that a design defect existed (Jones v City of New York, 32 AD3d 706 [2006]; Geddes v Crown Equip. Corp., 273 AD2d 904 [2000]).

[*327] The expert had no experience in the design of trading pits, had no knowledge of the injured plaintiffs position and movement at the time of the accident, used a leather sole (rather than rubber, which the injured plaintiff had been wearing) in performing his tests, and presented no foundational facts, such as deviation from industry standards or statistics showing the frequency of injuries caused by the alleged decrease in the coefficient of friction between the tread and the nose (id.; see also Fallon v Hannay & Son, 153 AD2d 95, 101-102 [1989]). Indeed, while the expert claimed that the decrease in the coefficient of friction from the tread to the nose impaired safety, he did not opine that the stairs were unsafe or dangerous, that it was improper to design the steps for a trading pit in that manner, or that the coefficient of friction for either the tread or the nose was inadequate. He did admit that the treads were intact, secure underfoot and devoid of any surface defect or impediments. “Since it is just as likely that the accident could have been caused by some other factor, such as a misstep or loss of balance, any determination by the trier of fact as to the cause of the accident would be based upon sheer speculation” (Teplitskaya v 3096 Owners Corp., 289 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.