Carbone v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carbone v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

279 A.D.2d 545, 719 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 602

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 545 (Carbone v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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

Carbone v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 279 A.D.2d 545, 719 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated April 11, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court, entered February 29, 2000, and denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue (see, Loland v City of New York, 212 AD2d 674). Furthermore, since the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the stanchion over which the injured plaintiff tripped and fell constituted a hazardous condition, it was proper for the Supreme Court, upon reargument, to vacate its prior order and deny the defendant’s motion. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated April 11, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court, entered February 29, 2000, and denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue (see, Loland v City of New York, 212 AD2d 674). Furthermore, since the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the stanchion over which the injured plaintiff tripped and fell constituted a hazardous condition, it was proper for the Supreme Court, upon reargument, to vacate its prior order and deny the defendant’s motion. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 545, 719 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carbone-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack