Carpenter v. 130 W. Merrick, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carpenter v. 130 W. Merrick, Inc.

71 A.D.3d 715, 895 N.Y.S.2d 729

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 715 (Carpenter v. 130 W. Merrick, Inc.) 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

Carpenter v. 130 W. Merrick, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 715, 895 N.Y.S.2d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated June 12, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a box containing merchandise which was placed on the floor, at the end of an aisle, in the defendants’ store. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, since the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Naletilic v Dan’s Key Food, 47 AD3d 903 [2008]; Rivera v YMCA of Greater N.Y., 37 AD3d 579, 580 [2007]; Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [2004]; see also Greenstein v R & R of G.C., Inc., 50 AD3d 637 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated June 12, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a box containing merchandise which was placed on the floor, at the end of an aisle, in the defendants’ store. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, since the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Naletilic v Dan’s Key Food, 47 AD3d 903 [2008]; Rivera v YMCA of Greater N.Y., 37 AD3d 579, 580 [2007]; Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [2004]; see also Greenstein v R & R of G.C., Inc., 50 AD3d 637 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 715, 895 N.Y.S.2d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-130-w-merrick-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack