Gaggiano v. Sinicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaggiano v. Sinicki

255 A.D.2d 953, 680 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12204

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 953 (Gaggiano v. Sinicki) 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

Gaggiano v. Sinicki, 255 A.D.2d 953, 680 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established that she neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition existing on the floor where plaintiff fell, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see, Wright v Fay’s Drugs, 226 AD2d 1132; Milea v Ames Dept. Store, 219 AD2d 798). Additionally, plaintiff concedes that she was aware of the presence of the automobile tire in defendant’s kitchen. Because the tire was readily observable, defendant had no duty to warn of its presence (see, Christmann v Murphy, 226 AD2d 1069, 1070, lv denied 89 NY2d 801; see also, Shandraw v Tops Mkts., 244 AD2d 997; Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 AD2d 95). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established that she neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition existing on the floor where plaintiff fell, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see, Wright v Fay’s Drugs, 226 AD2d 1132; Milea v Ames Dept. Store, 219 AD2d 798). Additionally, plaintiff concedes that she was aware of the presence of the automobile tire in defendant’s kitchen. Because the tire was readily observable, defendant had no duty to warn of its presence (see, Christmann v Murphy, 226 AD2d 1069, 1070, lv denied 89 NY2d 801; see also, Shandraw v Tops Mkts., 244 AD2d 997; Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 AD2d 95). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 953, 680 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaggiano-v-sinicki-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack