Eisenberg v. Lunch Boy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisenberg v. Lunch Boy, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 93, 681 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13257

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 93 (Eisenberg v. Lunch Boy, 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

Eisenberg v. Lunch Boy, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 93, 681 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant restaurant created or had constructive notice of the alleged grease spot on its floor that caused plaintiff to fall, raised by, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff and his co-worker that the floor was greasy and slippery, and the deposition testimony of defendant’s manager that persons making daily deliveries of cooking oils, and kitchen employees working with cooking oils, both commonly traversed the customer area of the restaurant (see, Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294; Henderson v Hickory Pit Rest., 221 AD2d 161). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant restaurant created or had constructive notice of the alleged grease spot on its floor that caused plaintiff to fall, raised by, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff and his co-worker that the floor was greasy and slippery, and the deposition testimony of defendant’s manager that persons making daily deliveries of cooking oils, and kitchen employees working with cooking oils, both commonly traversed the customer area of the restaurant (see, Colt v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 209 AD2d 294; Henderson v Hickory Pit Rest., 221 AD2d 161). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 93, 681 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenberg-v-lunch-boy-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack