Kraus v. B. Gertz, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kraus v. B. Gertz, Inc.

38 A.D.2d 857, 330 N.Y.S.2d 601

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 857 (Kraus v. B. Gertz, 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

Kraus v. B. Gertz, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 857, 330 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the 'Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 30, 1971, which dismissed her complaint upon the trial court’s decision at the close of the evidence upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion, plaintiff made out a prima facie case. She allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor adjacent to a water fountain in defendant’s department store. The proof adduced was sufficient from which the inferences could reasonably be drawn that the condition was a recurring one; that defendant, through its employees, had actual notice of the condition; and that the failure to take protective measures constituted negligence. The issues of whether defendant’s employee mopped the floor only minutes before the accident and whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence are for the jury. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the 'Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 30, 1971, which dismissed her complaint upon the trial court’s decision at the close of the evidence upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion, plaintiff made out a prima facie case. She allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor adjacent to a water fountain in defendant’s department store. The proof adduced was sufficient from which the inferences could reasonably be drawn that the condition was a recurring one; that defendant, through its employees, had actual notice of the condition; and that the failure to take protective measures constituted negligence. The issues of whether defendant’s employee mopped the floor only minutes before the accident and whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence are for the jury. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 857, 330 N.Y.S.2d 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraus-v-b-gertz-inc-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack