Banks v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banks v. Doe

251 A.D.2d 83, 672 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533

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

DecidedJune 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 83 (Banks v. Doe) 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

Banks v. Doe, 251 A.D.2d 83, 672 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered January 27, 1998, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in light of triable issues as to whether defendant knew or should have known that water tracked into its store by pedestrians in periods of inclement weather tended to form hazardous puddles on the store’s floor, and as to whether, if defendant had adequate notice of the alleged hazard, it took reasonable precautions to minimize it by the use of cardboard matting near the cashier’s station where plaintiff fell. Such matting had been utilized elsewhere at the store (see, Padula v Big V Supermarkets, 173 AD2d 1094). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered January 27, 1998, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in light of triable issues as to whether defendant knew or should have known that water tracked into its store by pedestrians in periods of inclement weather tended to form hazardous puddles on the store’s floor, and as to whether, if defendant had adequate notice of the alleged hazard, it took reasonable precautions to minimize it by the use of cardboard matting near the cashier’s station where plaintiff fell. Such matting had been utilized elsewhere at the store (see, Padula v Big V Supermarkets, 173 AD2d 1094). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 83, 672 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-doe-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack