Dominitz v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominitz v. Food Emporium, Inc.

271 A.D.2d 640, 706 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4546

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 640 (Dominitz v. Food Emporium, 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

Dominitz v. Food Emporium, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 640, 706 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants The Food Emporium, Inc., and Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 8, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On November 1, 1996, the plaintiff Regina Dominitz (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) tripped on the concrete curb of an island in a parking lot owned by the defendant Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., and leased by the defendant The Food Emporium, Inc. Although it was night, the flood lights in the parking lot were on, and the injured plaintiff subsequently testified at an examination before trial that she could see where she was going.

Since the record establishes that the curb upon which the injured plaintiff tripped and fell was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses, the defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Campanaro v Arizona Lipnob Estates, 259 AD2d 581; Moran v County of Dutchess, 237 AD2d 266). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, 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, etc., the defendants The Food Emporium, Inc., and Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 8, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On November 1, 1996, the plaintiff Regina Dominitz (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) tripped on the concrete curb of an island in a parking lot owned by the defendant Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., and leased by the defendant The Food Emporium, Inc. Although it was night, the flood lights in the parking lot were on, and the injured plaintiff subsequently testified at an examination before trial that she could see where she was going.

Since the record establishes that the curb upon which the injured plaintiff tripped and fell was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses, the defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Campanaro v Arizona Lipnob Estates, 259 AD2d 581; Moran v County of Dutchess, 237 AD2d 266). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 640, 706 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominitz-v-food-emporium-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack