Bernth v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

36 A.D.3d 844, 830 N.Y.S.2d 222
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 844 (Bernth v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) 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
Bernth v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 36 A.D.3d 844, 830 N.Y.S.2d 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

[845]*845In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J), dated February 21, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly fell over an empty merchandise cart in the frozen food aisle of the defendant’s supermarket. The cart was the type utilized by the defendant’s employees to move merchandise from the storage area to the shelves and was approximately six feet long, five feet high, and one foot wide with orange bars on its sides. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he saw several such carts in the center of the aisle and that he saw the empty cart his right leg came into contact with before his fall.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged defective condition which caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Mansueto v Worster, 1 AD3d 412 [2003]; Schoen v King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 AD2d 486 [2002]; Tresgallo v Danica, 286 AD2d 326 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Meagher-Cox v Winarski, 32 AD3d 379 [2006]; Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd., 15 AD3d 646 [2005]; Mastellone v City of New York, 29 AD3d 540 [2006]; Cupo v Karfunkel, supra). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ramirez v. Creative Linen House, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 1811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Chaney v. Starbucks Corp.
115 F. Supp. 3d 380 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Russo v. Home Goods, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Atehortua v. Lewin
90 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mathew v. A.J. Richard
84 A.D.3d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Flaim v. Hex Food, Inc.
79 A.D.3d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gradwohl v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.
70 A.D.3d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Marchetti v. Modica
65 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Stern v. Costco Wholesale
63 A.D.3d 1139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Neiderbach v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
56 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Salomon v. Prainito
52 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
52 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc.
43 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 A.D.3d 844, 830 N.Y.S.2d 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernth-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-2007.