Davis v. Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc.

278 A.D.2d 940, 718 N.Y.S.2d 557, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13628

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 940 (Davis v. Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, 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

Davis v. Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 940, 718 N.Y.S.2d 557, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Carol A. Davis when she allegedly tripped and fell while walking across the driveway of defendant Ted’s Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether the allegedly dangerous condition of the driveway arose from defendants’ use of the driveway (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Carol A. Davis when she allegedly tripped and fell while walking across the driveway of defendant Ted’s Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendants met their initial burden on the motion, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether the allegedly dangerous condition of the driveway arose from defendants’ use of the driveway (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 940, 718 N.Y.S.2d 557, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-teds-jumbo-red-hots-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack