Burgos v. 205 E.D. Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. 205 E.D. Food Corp.

61 A.D.3d 403, 876 N.Y.S.2d 381

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

DecidedApril 2, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 403 (Burgos v. 205 E.D. 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

Burgos v. 205 E.D. Food Corp., 61 A.D.3d 403, 876 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered April 29, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a supermarket operated by defendant tenant on premises owned by defendant landlord, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion of defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC for summary judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC dismissing the complaint as against it.

Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a box of tangerines the size of a supermarket shopping basket. Such a box can constitute a dangerous condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 75 [2004]). An issue of fact as to whether defendant supermarket created or had notice of this condition was raised by the testimony of plaintiff and a nonparty witness that there were always boxes in the aisles (see Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294 [1994]). However, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC, an out-of-possession landlord, had a contractual obligation to make repairs or maintain the premises (see Vasquez v The Rector, 40 AD3d 265 [2007]). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been entered in its favor.

Motion seeking stay dismissed as moot. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered April 29, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a supermarket operated by defendant tenant on premises owned by defendant landlord, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the motion of defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC for summary judgment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC dismissing the complaint as against it.

Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a box of tangerines the size of a supermarket shopping basket. Such a box can constitute a dangerous condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 75 [2004]). An issue of fact as to whether defendant supermarket created or had notice of this condition was raised by the testimony of plaintiff and a nonparty witness that there were always boxes in the aisles (see Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294 [1994]). However, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant Terrinaz Enterprises, LLC, an out-of-possession landlord, had a contractual obligation to make repairs or maintain the premises (see Vasquez v The Rector, 40 AD3d 265 [2007]). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been entered in its favor.

Motion seeking stay dismissed as moot. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 403, 876 N.Y.S.2d 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-205-ed-food-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack