Keller v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keller v. City of New York

260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620

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

DecidedApril 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 187 (Keller v. City of New York) 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

Keller v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered March 17, 1998, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiffs damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the evidence showing the absence of defendant’s custodial aide, whose duty was to clean up any food or drink that fell to the floor, and which indicated that salad had been on the floor of defendants’ lunchroom for 20 minutes before plaintiff slipped on it, falling and injuring herself, there was a rational basis for the jury to infer (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499) that the complained of hazard had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants’ personnel to discover it and take remedial measures (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Kelsey v Port Auth., 52 AD2d 801). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered March 17, 1998, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiffs damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the evidence showing the absence of defendant’s custodial aide, whose duty was to clean up any food or drink that fell to the floor, and which indicated that salad had been on the floor of defendants’ lunchroom for 20 minutes before plaintiff slipped on it, falling and injuring herself, there was a rational basis for the jury to infer (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499) that the complained of hazard had existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants’ personnel to discover it and take remedial measures (see, Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Kelsey v Port Auth., 52 AD2d 801). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack