Levin v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levin v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

264 A.D.2d 508, 694 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8907

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

DecidedAugust 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 508 (Levin v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, 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

Levin v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 508, 694 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 28, 1998, 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.

[509]*509In testimony given at her examination before trial, the plaintiff stated that she did not see what caused her to fall. More than four years after the accident and seven months after her examination before trial, she stated in an affidavit made in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment that at the time her accident occurred and in close proximity to the site of the accident, “[tjhere was a utility cart with a large rubber bin on it that was filled with wet vegetables and produce being packed out by the employee at the time of my accident”. The plaintiff thus maintains that it was that store employee who created the hazard.

The plaintiffs statement in her affidavit presents a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier admission that she never saw the substance which allegedly caused her to fall (see, Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 28, 1998, 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.

[509]*509In testimony given at her examination before trial, the plaintiff stated that she did not see what caused her to fall. More than four years after the accident and seven months after her examination before trial, she stated in an affidavit made in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment that at the time her accident occurred and in close proximity to the site of the accident, “[tjhere was a utility cart with a large rubber bin on it that was filled with wet vegetables and produce being packed out by the employee at the time of my accident”. The plaintiff thus maintains that it was that store employee who created the hazard.

The plaintiffs statement in her affidavit presents a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier admission that she never saw the substance which allegedly caused her to fall (see, Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 508, 694 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-dagostino-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack