Catanzaro v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

194 A.D.2d 584, 599 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 584 (Catanzaro v. King Kullen Grocery 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
Catanzaro v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 194 A.D.2d 584, 599 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated February 21, 1991, which denied its motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this case, the plaintiff Joanne Catanzaro slipped and fell on a puddle containing glass while shopping in the defendant’s grocery store. After a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the Trial Judge refused to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. We agree. A verdict may only be set aside as against the weight of the evidence when there is no basis upon which a jury could have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; Moore v Health Ins. Plan, 186 AD2d 118).

Here, the evidence adduced at trial shows that although the plaintiff, her husband, and another customer, were in the store approximately one-half hour before the accident, they did not hear any sounds of breaking glass. Moreover, the other customer was in the immediate vicinity of the accident for approximately 10 minutes before the accident. In addition, there were several employees working in the vicinity of the spillage, and the injured plaintiff’s husband testified that the footprints and wheel marks in the area surrounding the puddle were both wet and dry. There was no testimony establishing that this area of the floor was inspected any [585]*585sooner than four to five hours before the accident. Thus, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could impute constructive notice to the defendant. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Clark v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC
164 N.Y.S.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Alaimo v. Sam's East, Inc.
S.D. New York, 2021
Tsekhanovskaya v. Starrett City, Inc.
90 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gonzalez v. New York City Transit Authority
87 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Villaurel v. City of New York
59 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ascher v. Target Corp.
522 F. Supp. 2d 452 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Field v. Waldbaum, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Torres v. Jeremias
283 A.D.2d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Rose v. Da Ecib USA
259 A.D.2d 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Gordon v. Waldbaum, Inc.
231 A.D.2d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Salaam v. City of New York
226 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Young v. Whitman Deli, Inc.
214 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Briccio v. Disbrow
212 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Moskowitz v. Israel
209 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kaufman v. Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc.
203 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A.D.2d 584, 599 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catanzaro-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-1993.