Galarza v. Walgreen Eastern Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galarza v. Walgreen Eastern Co.

236 A.D.2d 265, 653 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 265 (Galarza v. Walgreen Eastern 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

Galarza v. Walgreen Eastern Co., 236 A.D.2d 265, 653 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered November 1, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant supermarket’s contention that there is no evidence from which a jury could infer that it had constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall, where plaintiff’s bill of particulars, deposition testimony and opposing affidavit alleged the "whole” aisle in which she fell was covered with, among other things, wet and dry green liquid and foot marks indicating that the liquid had been "stepped on” (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Salaam v City of New York, 226 AD2d 173; cf., Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 838). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered November 1, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant supermarket’s contention that there is no evidence from which a jury could infer that it had constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall, where plaintiff’s bill of particulars, deposition testimony and opposing affidavit alleged the "whole” aisle in which she fell was covered with, among other things, wet and dry green liquid and foot marks indicating that the liquid had been "stepped on” (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Salaam v City of New York, 226 AD2d 173; cf., Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 838). Concur— Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 265, 653 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galarza-v-walgreen-eastern-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack