Guerrero v. Duane Reade, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerrero v. Duane Reade, Inc.

112 A.D.3d 496, 976 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 496 (Guerrero v. Duane Reade, 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

Guerrero v. Duane Reade, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 496, 976 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered November 23, 2012, which granted defendant Duane Reade, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this slip and fall action, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition, since it failed to offer specific evidence as to its activities on the day of the accident, including, but not limited to, when the area where plaintiff fell was last inspected (see e.g. Cater v Double Down Realty Corp., 101 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition, plaintiff testified it had been raining or drizzling continuously prior to his accident and that he had seen mats rolled up in front of the store, but not placed down where he fell, giving rise to a question of fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition (Signorelli v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered November 23, 2012, which granted defendant Duane Reade, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this slip and fall action, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition, since it failed to offer specific evidence as to its activities on the day of the accident, including, but not limited to, when the area where plaintiff fell was last inspected (see e.g. Cater v Double Down Realty Corp., 101 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2012]). In addition, plaintiff testified it had been raining or drizzling continuously prior to his accident and that he had seen mats rolled up in front of the store, but not placed down where he fell, giving rise to a question of fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition (Signorelli v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 496, 976 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerrero-v-duane-reade-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack