Frustace v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 607 (Frustace v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 607, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frustace-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack