Dapolito v. Stop & Shop Supermarket

90 A.D.3d 693, 934 N.Y.2d 337

Opinion

The defendant established, prima facie, that the display platform at issue was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; Neiderbach v 7-Eleven, Inc., 56 AD3d 632 [2008]; Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd., 15 AD3d 646 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, A.P.J., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Dapolito v. Stop & Shop Supermarket, 90 A.D.3d 693, 934 N.Y.2d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 693 (Dapolito v. Stop & Shop Supermarket) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tenenbaum v. Best 21 Ltd.
15 A.D.3d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc.
67 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)