Katsoris v. Waldbaum, Inc.

241 A.D.2d 511, 663 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7812
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 21, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 511 (Katsoris v. Waldbaum, 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
Katsoris v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511, 663 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[512]*512ages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered September 11, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs base their allegations of negligence on the claim that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall in its supermarket. It is well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the condition which caused the plaintiffs fall, or had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Hollinger v Chestnut Ridge Racquet Corp., 227 AD2d 380; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590). To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident so as to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to constructive notice. Any finding that the grapes upon which the injured plaintiff allegedly slipped had been on the floor for any appreciable period of time would be mere speculation (see, Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 AD2d 570; Bashaw v Rite Aid, 207 AD2d 632; Anderson v Klein’s Foods, 139 AD2d 904, affd 73 NY2d 835). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Weeman v. Rouse Si Shopping Center, LLC
79 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Onley v. Shopwell, Inc.
16 A.D.3d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Cynar v. U.S. Trust Corp.
7 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Klein v. Fallsview Hotel
6 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Scott v. First Stop, Inc.
3 A.D.3d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Staniewicz v. Stop & Shop Super Food Market Co.
3 A.D.3d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Torino v. Edwards Super Food Stores
302 A.D.2d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Patricia v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center
289 A.D.2d 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Price v. EQK Green Acres, L.P.
275 A.D.2d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Green v. Central Island Nursing Home, Inc.
268 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Robinson v. Lupo
261 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
West v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
259 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Campbell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
257 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Capraro v. Staten Island University Hospital
245 A.D.2d 256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Graubart v. Laro Maintenance Corp.
244 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Koser v. Supermarkets General Corp.
244 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Salkey v. New York Racing Ass'n
243 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 A.D.2d 511, 663 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katsoris-v-waldbaum-inc-nyappdiv-1997.