Anderson v. Klein's Foods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Klein's Foods, Inc.

139 A.D.2d 904, 527 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by58 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 904 (Anderson v. Klein's Foods, 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

Anderson v. Klein's Foods, Inc., 139 A.D.2d 904, 527 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

— Judgment reversed on the law with[905]*905out costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The evidence is insufficient to prove that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition of the floor. Plaintiff was unable to tell how long the grapes had been on the floor before she fell. When plaintiff entered the store she glanced at the produce area, but she could not see the condition of the floor. As she proceeded down one aisle and up another, she could not see the produce area and could not tell whether anyone was there. After plaintiff fell she saw grapes on the floor, some of which she crushed, and some others farther away, which had been crushed by someone else. From this evidence, any finding that the grapes had been on the floor for any appreciable period of time would be mere speculation. The evidence is just as consistent with a finding that someone had dropped grapes on the floor and had stepped on them shortly before plaintiff fell. Although plaintiff testified that there were very few customers in the store, the aisles blocked her view of the entire store and she walked through only a portion of it.

All concur, except Doerr, J. P. and Davis, J., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum.

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

— Judgment reversed on the law with[905]*905out costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The evidence is insufficient to prove that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition of the floor. Plaintiff was unable to tell how long the grapes had been on the floor before she fell. When plaintiff entered the store she glanced at the produce area, but she could not see the condition of the floor. As she proceeded down one aisle and up another, she could not see the produce area and could not tell whether anyone was there. After plaintiff fell she saw grapes on the floor, some of which she crushed, and some others farther away, which had been crushed by someone else. From this evidence, any finding that the grapes had been on the floor for any appreciable period of time would be mere speculation. The evidence is just as consistent with a finding that someone had dropped grapes on the floor and had stepped on them shortly before plaintiff fell. Although plaintiff testified that there were very few customers in the store, the aisles blocked her view of the entire store and she walked through only a portion of it.

All concur, except Doerr, J. P. and Davis, J., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 904, 527 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-kleins-foods-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack