Bernstein v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernstein v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.

301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 620 (Bernstein v. Giant Food Stores, 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

Bernstein v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries after she allegedly slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor of the defendant’s supermarket. However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and a reasonable time to remedy it (see Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Schneider v Melmarkets Inc., 289 AD2d 470). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries after she allegedly slipped and fell on a wet spot on the floor of the defendant’s supermarket. However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof and a reasonable time to remedy it (see Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Schneider v Melmarkets Inc., 289 AD2d 470). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-giant-food-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack