Dietzen v. Aldi Inc.

57 A.D.3d 1514, 870 N.Y.2d 189
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1514 (Dietzen v. Aldi 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
Dietzen v. Aldi Inc., 57 A.D.3d 1514, 870 N.Y.2d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Susan Dietzen (plaintiff) when she tripped and fell over a wooden pallet in a store owned by defendant. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment, we conclude that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the motion (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Although there are some inconsistencies between the affidavits submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to the motion and plaintiffs prior deposition testimony, we reject defendant’s contention under the circumstances of this case that those affidavits are an attempt to raise feigned issues of fact (cf. Martin v Savage, 299 AD2d 903 [2002]). Any such inconsistencies present credibility issues to be resolved at trial (see Knepka v Tallman, 278 AD2d 811 [2000]; see also Schoen v Rochester Gas & Elec., 242 AD2d 928 [1997]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, there is an issue of fact whether the wooden pallet protruded into the aisle of the store, creating a dangerous condition (see Grizzanto v Golub Corp., 188 AD2d 1015 [1992]). Although defendant [1515]*1515contends that the location of the wooden pallet was open and obvious, we nevertheless conclude that defendant was not relieved of its obligation to keep the property in a safe condition (see Moloney v Wal-Mart Stores, 2 AD3d 508, 510 [2003]; Monge v Home Depot, 307 AD2d 501, 502 [2003]; Patterson v Troyer Potato Prods., 273 AD2d 865 [2000]; cf. Morgan v TJX Cos., Inc., 38 AD3d 508 [2007]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

Iskalo Elec. Tower LLC v. Stantec Consulting Servs., Inc.
219 A.D.3d 1157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
GOWIN, DAVID v. AVOX SYSTEMS, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Gowin v. Avox System, Inc.
144 A.D.3d 1577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
HALE, JOSEPH C. v. MEADOWOOD FARMS OF CAZENOVIA, LLC
104 A.D.3d 1330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
SAUTER, JOYCE v. CALABRETTA, PETER A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Sauter ex rel. Sauter v. Calabretta
90 A.D.3d 1702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
GODLEWSKI, ROBIN v. CARTHAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Godlewski v. Carthage Central School District
83 A.D.3d 1571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Edwards v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center
72 A.D.3d 1595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Palmer v. Horton
66 A.D.3d 1433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 1514, 870 N.Y.2d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietzen-v-aldi-inc-nyappdiv-2008.