Burgos v. Israel Discount Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Israel Discount Bank

16 A.D.3d 134, 791 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2178

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 134 (Burgos v. Israel Discount Bank) 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. Israel Discount Bank, 16 A.D.3d 134, 791 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), [135]*135entered May 4, 2004, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant Israel Discount Bank of New York/MOC for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant Israel Discount Bank of New York/MOC. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this personal injury action arising from plaintiffs slip and fall on an oily substance on the floor under the counter where she was serving food, it is undisputed that defendant-appellant neither created the supposedly slippery floor nor had actual or constructive notice thereof. Plaintiff’s contention that defendant-appellant created the condition by failing to supply “rubber matting” in areas where food servers and preparers could reasonably be expected to place their feet is insufficient, absent any contractual or regulatory requirement to that effect, to defeat defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), [135]*135entered May 4, 2004, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant Israel Discount Bank of New York/MOC for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as to defendant-appellant Israel Discount Bank of New York/MOC. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this personal injury action arising from plaintiffs slip and fall on an oily substance on the floor under the counter where she was serving food, it is undisputed that defendant-appellant neither created the supposedly slippery floor nor had actual or constructive notice thereof. Plaintiff’s contention that defendant-appellant created the condition by failing to supply “rubber matting” in areas where food servers and preparers could reasonably be expected to place their feet is insufficient, absent any contractual or regulatory requirement to that effect, to defeat defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 134, 791 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-israel-discount-bank-nyappdiv-2005.