Chetcuti v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chetcuti v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

42 A.D.3d 419, 839 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 419 (Chetcuti v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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

Chetcuti v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 42 A.D.3d 419, 839 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered December 15, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Peter Chetcuti is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Mariel Chetcuti, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Mariel Chetcuti (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly slipped and fell on a green substance on the floor of the defendants’ store. Although there were no witnesses to the accident, one of the assistant store managers, Beverly Jean Bovian, observed the green substance on the floor shortly after the plaintiffs fall and noted in an accident report that it had come from a small bottle of fragrance oil that had fallen from a plastic display attached to a shelf, known as a “clip strip,” on which small items are hung.

On this record, the defendants’ motion papers left unresolved triable issues of fact as to whether they created the alleged dangerous condition or, alternatively, whether they had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Lafrancesca v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 23 AD3d 351 [2005]). Accordingly, the [420]*420defendants’ motion should have been denied for failure to make out a prima facie case (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]).

The plaintiff’s contention that the defendants engaged in sanctionable conduct by failing to take photographs of the alleged hazardous condition before cleaning it up is without merit (see Barahona v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 16 AD3d 445, 446 [2005]; Favish v Tepler, 294 AD2d 396 [2002]). Rivera, J.E, Florio, Fisher and Dillon, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered December 15, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Peter Chetcuti is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Mariel Chetcuti, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Mariel Chetcuti (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly slipped and fell on a green substance on the floor of the defendants’ store. Although there were no witnesses to the accident, one of the assistant store managers, Beverly Jean Bovian, observed the green substance on the floor shortly after the plaintiffs fall and noted in an accident report that it had come from a small bottle of fragrance oil that had fallen from a plastic display attached to a shelf, known as a “clip strip,” on which small items are hung.

On this record, the defendants’ motion papers left unresolved triable issues of fact as to whether they created the alleged dangerous condition or, alternatively, whether they had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Lafrancesca v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 23 AD3d 351 [2005]). Accordingly, the [420]*420defendants’ motion should have been denied for failure to make out a prima facie case (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]).

The plaintiff’s contention that the defendants engaged in sanctionable conduct by failing to take photographs of the alleged hazardous condition before cleaning it up is without merit (see Barahona v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 16 AD3d 445, 446 [2005]; Favish v Tepler, 294 AD2d 396 [2002]). Rivera, J.E, Florio, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 419, 839 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chetcuti-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack