Gottlieb v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottlieb v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

226 A.D.2d 344, 640 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3423

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

DecidedApril 1, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 344 (Gottlieb 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

Gottlieb v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 344, 640 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated March 31, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that her testimony as to comments made by the store manager shortly after an accident raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused her to fall. The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence in admissible form as to whether the store manager had the authority to make the comments in question so as to bind his principal (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624). We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated March 31, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that her testimony as to comments made by the store manager shortly after an accident raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused her to fall. The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence in admissible form as to whether the store manager had the authority to make the comments in question so as to bind his principal (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624). We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 344, 640 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottlieb-v-waldbaums-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack