Constance v. Food Emporium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Constance v. Food Emporium

289 A.D.2d 363, 735 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12201

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered October 2, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a shriveled and slimy lettuce leaf located in a puddle of dirty water. The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created the alleged dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Marukos v Waldbaums, Inc., 267 AD2d 434; Koser v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 244 AD2d 320; Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 AD2d 570). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Anderson v Klein’s Foods, 139 AD2d 904, affd 73 NY2d 835; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered October 2, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a shriveled and slimy lettuce leaf located in a puddle of dirty water. The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they neither created the alleged dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Marukos v Waldbaums, Inc., 267 AD2d 434; Koser v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 244 AD2d 320; Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 AD2d 570). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Anderson v Klein’s Foods, 139 AD2d 904, affd 73 NY2d 835; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Constance v. Food Emporium, 289 A.D.2d 363, 735 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 363 (Constance v. Food Emporium) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related