Crawford v. Pick Quick Foods, Inc.

300 A.D.2d 431, 750 N.Y.S.2d 884
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 431 (Crawford v. Pick Quick Foods, 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
Crawford v. Pick Quick Foods, Inc., 300 A.D.2d 431, 750 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover [432]*432damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated August 17, 2001, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Pick Quick Foods, Inc., and Coca Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was injured when, while removing a two-liter bottle from a crate in a soda bottle display, the crate and bottles fell and struck her. She commenced this action against the store owner and Coca Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., arguing that they created a dangerous condition by assembling a display that was too high, thereby causing her to have to reach up to retrieve a soda bottle from the display. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff needed to demonstrate the existence of a dangerous or defective condition that caused her injuries, and that the defendants either created or had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 242 AD2d 268). In support of their motions, the defendants presented prima facie evidence that no dangerous condition existed. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no evidence in this record of any dangerous condition. Thus, under such circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Zeppetelli v. 1372 Broadway, LLC
222 A.D.3d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Ingram v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
117 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
McNee v. ShopRite
116 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ensher v. Charlton
64 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Almonte v. City of New York
35 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Caldwell v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bodden v. Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc.
6 A.D.3d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Marusevich v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
309 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Topal v. Village of Pelham
304 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 431, 750 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-pick-quick-foods-inc-nyappdiv-2002.