Frustace v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

279 A.D.2d 607, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 935

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated June 9, 2000, which denied its 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.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff could only speculate as to the cause of her fall (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Hoff v Trump Castle Assocs., 243 AD2d 698; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Frustace v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 279 A.D.2d 607, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

279 A.D.2d 607 (Frustace v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Garvin v. Rosenberg
204 A.D.2d 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Roff v. Trump Castle Associates
243 A.D.2d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)