Bernstein v. Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernstein v. Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc.

240 A.D.2d 228, 658 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6495

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 228 (Bernstein v. Red Apple Supermarkets, 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. Red Apple Supermarkets, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 228, 658 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1996, insofar as appealed from, dismissing the third-party complaint as a matter of law, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence at trial demonstrated that there was a slit or tear in the carpeted floor mat at the entrance to third-party plaintiff’s store that caused plaintiff to trip, fall and to sustain injuries. Third-party plaintiff seeks indemnity or contribution from third-party defendant who supplied it with the mat, but its third-party complaint was dismissed during trial for failure to make out a prima facie case. The dismissal was proper. Third-party plaintiff adduced no evidence of a defect in the mat when it left the custody and control of third-party defendant, and also failed to eliminate other possibilities for the existence of the tear, such as the daily rolling up of the mat and frequent handtruck activity over the mats during deliveries (see, Rosenzweig v Arista Truck Renting Corp., 34 AD2d 542). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1996, insofar as appealed from, dismissing the third-party complaint as a matter of law, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence at trial demonstrated that there was a slit or tear in the carpeted floor mat at the entrance to third-party plaintiff’s store that caused plaintiff to trip, fall and to sustain injuries. Third-party plaintiff seeks indemnity or contribution from third-party defendant who supplied it with the mat, but its third-party complaint was dismissed during trial for failure to make out a prima facie case. The dismissal was proper. Third-party plaintiff adduced no evidence of a defect in the mat when it left the custody and control of third-party defendant, and also failed to eliminate other possibilities for the existence of the tear, such as the daily rolling up of the mat and frequent handtruck activity over the mats during deliveries (see, Rosenzweig v Arista Truck Renting Corp., 34 AD2d 542). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 228, 658 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-red-apple-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack