Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

264 A.D.2d 810, 695 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 810 (Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, 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

Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 810, 695 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated July 13, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, [811]*811and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 21, 1998, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised an appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to show that a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant either created the condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Albano v City of New York, 250 AD2d 555; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). The plaintiffs’ assertions are based upon mere speculation, which is insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion (see, Perrone v Waldbaum, Inc., 252 AD2d 517; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated July 13, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, [811]*811and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 21, 1998, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised an appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to show that a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant either created the condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall or had actual or constructive notice thereof (see, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Albano v City of New York, 250 AD2d 555; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). The plaintiffs’ assertions are based upon mere speculation, which is insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion (see, Perrone v Waldbaum, Inc., 252 AD2d 517; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 810, 695 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-waldbaums-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack