Infante v. Jerome Car Wash

52 A.D.3d 319, 859 N.Y.S.2d 644
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered March 28, 2007, which [320] granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff alleges she fell on a soapy sidewalk while exiting her vehicle at defendants’ car wash. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence (see Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436 [2005]). Plaintiff was under no obligation to rebut defendants’ expert’s conclusions with an expert of her own, since expert testimony is not required where the question of whether there is an unsafe condition is within the common knowledge and experience of jurors (see Chafoulias v 240 E. 55th St. Tenants Corp., 141 AD2d 207, 211 [1988]). In view of the foregoing, there is no necessity to pass on the merits of defendants’ expert testimony. Concur— Tom, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

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

Infante v. Jerome Car Wash, 52 A.D.3d 319, 859 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

52 A.D.3d 319 (Infante v. Jerome Car Wash) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Webster v. City Of New York
S.D. New York, 2021
GOWIN, DAVID v. AVOX SYSTEMS, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Gowin v. Avox System, Inc.
144 A.D.3d 1577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)