Impieri v. First National Supermarket, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 284, 715 N.Y.S.2d 741, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 284 (Impieri v. First National 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
Impieri v. First National Supermarket, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 284, 715 N.Y.S.2d 741, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover [285]*285damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated February 15, 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 Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the defendant met its burden of establishing that it neither created the dangerous condition which allegedly caused the accident nor had a reasonable time within which to discover and remedy the condition (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Melendez v Melmarkets, Inc., 276 AD2d 535; Rivest v Pizza Hut, 264 AD2d 388; Bradish v Tank Tech Corp., 216 AD2d 505).

The plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence in admissible form that statements allegedly made by the defendant’s employees were made with the authority to speak for the defendant or that the statements could properly be used to establish notice (see, Melendez v Melmarkets, Inc., supra; Rivest v Pizza Hut, supra; Williams v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 236 AD2d 605). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Grant v. Radamar Meat
294 A.D.2d 398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 284, 715 N.Y.S.2d 741, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/impieri-v-first-national-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-2000.