Amato v. Pathmark, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amato v. Pathmark, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 348, 734 N.Y.S.2d 868

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 348 (Amato v. Pathmark, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amato v. Pathmark, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 348, 734 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Pathmark, Inc., d/b/a Pathmark of Boro Park, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered July 11, 2000, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Edward Amato and against it in the principal sum of $5,000. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court entered November 18, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Edward Amato was allegedly injured when he slipped in a puddle of water in the aisle of a supermarket operated by the defendant Pathmark, Inc., d/b/a Pathmark of Boro Park (hereinafter Pathmark). The plaintiffs’ theory of liability, that the puddle was left by the appellant’s floor-cleaning crew, is without merit. The statement of the plaintiffs’ expert that “the most probable source” of the water was negligent floor cleaning is pure speculation (see, Frankie v Glen Cove Hous. Auth., 276 AD2d 668). Accordingly, the judgment against Path-mark is reversed, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against it, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed. Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Pathmark, Inc., d/b/a Pathmark of Boro Park, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered July 11, 2000, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Edward Amato and against it in the principal sum of $5,000. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court entered November 18, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Edward Amato was allegedly injured when he slipped in a puddle of water in the aisle of a supermarket operated by the defendant Pathmark, Inc., d/b/a Pathmark of Boro Park (hereinafter Pathmark). The plaintiffs’ theory of liability, that the puddle was left by the appellant’s floor-cleaning crew, is without merit. The statement of the plaintiffs’ expert that “the most probable source” of the water was negligent floor cleaning is pure speculation (see, Frankie v Glen Cove Hous. Auth., 276 AD2d 668). Accordingly, the judgment against Path-mark is reversed, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against it, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed. Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 348, 734 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amato-v-pathmark-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack