Berner v. 2061 A Bartow Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berner v. 2061 A Bartow Food Corp.

279 A.D.2d 275, 718 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 275 (Berner v. 2061 A Bartow Food Corp.) 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

Berner v. 2061 A Bartow Food Corp., 279 A.D.2d 275, 718 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant maintains that the complaint should be dismissed because it had no notice of the slippery condition on its premises which allegedly caused plaintiff to lose her footing and sustain injury, the record contains evidence sufficient to permit a fact-finder to infer that the slippery condition was created by one of defendant’s employees as he sprayed vegetables, and actual notice will be presumed where the defendant created the hazardous condition (see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese, 213 AD2d 336). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant maintains that the complaint should be dismissed because it had no notice of the slippery condition on its premises which allegedly caused plaintiff to lose her footing and sustain injury, the record contains evidence sufficient to permit a fact-finder to infer that the slippery condition was created by one of defendant’s employees as he sprayed vegetables, and actual notice will be presumed where the defendant created the hazardous condition (see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese, 213 AD2d 336). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 275, 718 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berner-v-2061-a-bartow-food-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack