What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the slip-and-fall lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing defendants' conduct caused her fall.

Who is affected by this decision?

The parties to the case — the plaintiff, Lisa Johnson, who lost her claim, and the defendants (AMF Bowling Centers) who prevailed — are directly affected; the decision also reinforces standards for proving causation in premises-liability claims.

Why did the court say the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient?

Because the plaintiff gave inconsistent testimony and did not identify any specific negligent condition (like confirmed excessive oiling or wax) that caused the fall, so the cause could only be speculative.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Potential further review to the Court of Appeals would depend on whether leave to appeal is sought and granted; the Appellate Division's affirmance is final unless higher review is accepted.

Johnson v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc.

Docket Index No. 450921/19|Appeal No. 6449|Case No. 2024-03539|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02452
Docket numbers: Index No450921/19Appeal No6449Case No2024-03539

Appeal from an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal-injury complaint, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Lisa Johnson's personal-injury complaint arising from a slip-and-fall at defendants' bowling alley. The court held the appeal was properly considered on the merits despite a procedural argument about appeal timing, but found no admissible evidence that any specific negligent condition (such as excessive oiling or waxing) caused the fall. Because causation could only be based on speculation, defendants met their burden and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so the dismissal was upheld.

Issues Decided

Whether the plaintiff's appeal from an order granting summary judgment could be heard despite entry of a subsequent judgment
Whether defendants established entitlement to summary judgment by showing absence of evidence that their conduct caused the slip-and-fall
Whether plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact that excessive oiling, waxing, or conditioning of the floor caused her fall

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on CPLR 5501(c) to treat the appeal from the summary-judgment order as encompassing the later-entered judgment, allowing review on the merits. On liability, defendants produced evidence showing there was no proof tying any specific hazardous condition to the fall, and plaintiff's testimony was inconsistent and failed to identify an actionable cause beyond general slipperiness. Because any causal inference would be speculative, summary judgment was appropriate and plaintiff did not meet her burden to raise a factual dispute.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 5501(c)
Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc.11 NY3d 843 (2008)
Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc.38 AD3d 326 (1st Dept 2007), lv denied 9 NY3d 802 (2007)

Parties

Plaintiff: Lisa Johnson
Defendant: AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.
Attorney: Scott Gillman
Attorney: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (Guy Des Rosiers of counsel)
Judge: Eric Schumacher
Judge: Scarpulla, J.P.
Judge: Friedman
Judge: Gesmer
Judge: Shulman
Judge: Chan

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-23
Order entered (motion granted): 2024-04-30
Judgment entered (dismissing complaint): 2024-06-05

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If plaintiff wishes to continue, she should consult counsel about applying for leave to the New York Court of Appeals and whether there are substantial legal questions warranting review.
2
Review the trial record for new evidence
Plaintiff's counsel should reassess whether any admissible evidence (e.g., maintenance logs, expert testimony, surveillance) was overlooked or could be newly obtained to support causation.
3
Evaluate settlement alternatives
Both parties may consider whether settlement is appropriate given the appellate affirmance and the costs/risks of further proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the slip-and-fall lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing defendants' conduct caused her fall.
Who is affected by this decision?: The parties to the case — the plaintiff, Lisa Johnson, who lost her claim, and the defendants (AMF Bowling Centers) who prevailed — are directly affected; the decision also reinforces standards for proving causation in premises-liability claims.
Why did the court say the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient?: Because the plaintiff gave inconsistent testimony and did not identify any specific negligent condition (like confirmed excessive oiling or wax) that caused the fall, so the cause could only be speculative.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Potential further review to the Court of Appeals would depend on whether leave to appeal is sought and granted; the Appellate Division's affirmance is final unless higher review is accepted.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Johnson v AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02452

Johnson v AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 02452

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Lisa Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant,

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Index No. 450921/19|Appeal No. 6449|Case No. 2024-03539|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Scott Gillman, New York, for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (Guy Des Rosiers of counsel), for respondents.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eric Schumacher, J.), entered April 30, 2024, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 2024, dismissing the complaint, and the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This personal injury action stems from plaintiff's slip-and-fall at defendants' bowling alley. Initially, defendants' argument that plaintiff's appeal from the order granting their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint must be dismissed because her right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in favor of defendants is without merit. CPLR 5501 (c) expressly provides that a "notice of appeal from an order directing summary judgment . . . shall be deemed to specify a judgment upon said order entered after service of the notice of appeal and before entry of the order of the appellate court upon such appeal."

To the extent Supreme Court based its decision on plaintiff's failure to submit a response to defendants' statement of material facts, we elect to substitute our discretion for that of the motion court and decide the appeal on the merits (
see generally Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc.
, 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). It is the policy preference of the courts of this State to decide cases on their merits, rather than on procedural technicalities (
see e.g. U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.
, 33 NY3d 72, 78 [2019];
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v Blavatnik
, 23 NY3d 665, 679 [2014];
N.E. v Parkash 242, LLC
, 238 AD3d 641, 642 [1st Dept 2025]).

Nevertheless, defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff testified inconsistently as to whether she knew where in the bowling lane she slipped. Assuming that she slipped in the approach to the bowling lane (as opposed to in the lane itself), she did not identify any condition in that area that caused her fall, beyond mere slipperiness. Although she alleged in her complaint and bills of particulars that her fall was caused by defendants' excessive oiling, waxing, or conditioning of the floor, which led to creation of a dangerous slippery condition, she produced no evidence to support that allegation. 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 of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of any proof of the negligent application of wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action, or even an inference of negligence"]).

In opposition to defendants' prima facie showing, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026