Bowers v. Vial

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowers v. Vial

78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 534 (Bowers v. Vial) 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

Bowers v. Vial, 78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 5, 1979, which is in favor of the defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of all the evidence. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs. Trial Term correctly concluded that the defendants had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the slippery substance on the stairway upon which the plaintiff fell. There was a complete absence of proof as to how the substance got on the stairway or that either of the defendants or their employees created the condition (see Bogart v Woolworth Co., 24 NY2d 936, 937; Lavine v United Paper Bd. Co., 243 NY 631; Katcher v Ideal Tennis, 65 AD2d 751; Dowling v Woolworth Co., 16 AD2d 672; Donohoe v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 277 App Div 739). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 5, 1979, which is in favor of the defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of all the evidence. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs. Trial Term correctly concluded that the defendants had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the slippery substance on the stairway upon which the plaintiff fell. There was a complete absence of proof as to how the substance got on the stairway or that either of the defendants or their employees created the condition (see Bogart v Woolworth Co., 24 NY2d 936, 937; Lavine v United Paper Bd. Co., 243 NY 631; Katcher v Ideal Tennis, 65 AD2d 751; Dowling v Woolworth Co., 16 AD2d 672; Donohoe v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 277 App Div 739). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowers-v-vial-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack