Ames v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ames v. Waldbaum, Inc.

34 A.D.3d 607, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 607 (Ames v. Waldbaum, 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

Ames v. Waldbaum, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 607, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 6, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

By offering no evidence to establish when the area in which the plaintiff allegedly was injured was last inspected or cleaned on the day in question, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]; Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d 572, 572-573 [2006]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436, 436-437 [2005]). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing affidavits (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 6, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

By offering no evidence to establish when the area in which the plaintiff allegedly was injured was last inspected or cleaned on the day in question, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]; Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc., 29 AD3d 572, 572-573 [2006]; Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436, 436-437 [2005]). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing affidavits (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 607, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-v-waldbaum-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack