Hsin Kuo Chiu v. Supermarkets General

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hsin Kuo Chiu v. Supermarkets General

288 A.D.2d 267, 732 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10886

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 267 (Hsin Kuo Chiu v. Supermarkets General) 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

Hsin Kuo Chiu v. Supermarkets General, 288 A.D.2d 267, 732 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 7, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant satisfied its burden on the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by establishing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Bachrach v Waldbaum, 261 AD2d 426; Goldman v Waldbaum, 248 AD2d 436; Golding v Powell & Dempsey, 247 AD2d 510). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the condition or had actual notice of it, or whether the condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 7, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant satisfied its burden on the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by establishing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Bachrach v Waldbaum, 261 AD2d 426; Goldman v Waldbaum, 248 AD2d 436; Golding v Powell & Dempsey, 247 AD2d 510). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created the condition or had actual notice of it, or whether the condition was visible and apparent and had existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 267, 732 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsin-kuo-chiu-v-supermarkets-general-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack