Griefer v. Skips Detailing & Accessories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griefer v. Skips Detailing & Accessories, Inc.

252 A.D.2d 570, 675 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8644

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 570 (Griefer v. Skips Detailing & Accessories, 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

Griefer v. Skips Detailing & Accessories, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 570, 675 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme [571]*571Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered May 22, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries from splinters from a wooden bench in the defendant’s waiting room. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, on its motion for summary judgment the defendant met its burden of establishing its lack of awareness of the existence of the alleged defect at the time and place of the occurrence giving rise to the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Masotti v Waldbaums Supermarket, 227 AD2d 532). The plaintiff presented no evidence, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, showing that the defendant either created the allegedly defective condition, had actual notice of it, or that the condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident so as to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Masotti v Waldbaums Supermarket, supra, at 553; see also, Nabson v Mardall Realty Corp., 257 App Div 659).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme [571]*571Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered May 22, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries from splinters from a wooden bench in the defendant’s waiting room. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, on its motion for summary judgment the defendant met its burden of establishing its lack of awareness of the existence of the alleged defect at the time and place of the occurrence giving rise to the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Masotti v Waldbaums Supermarket, 227 AD2d 532). The plaintiff presented no evidence, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, showing that the defendant either created the allegedly defective condition, had actual notice of it, or that the condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident so as to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Masotti v Waldbaums Supermarket, supra, at 553; see also, Nabson v Mardall Realty Corp., 257 App Div 659).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 570, 675 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griefer-v-skips-detailing-accessories-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack