Marcus v. Namdor, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus v. Namdor, Inc.

46 A.D.3d 373, 846 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 373 (Marcus v. Namdor, 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

Marcus v. Namdor, Inc., 46 A.D.3d 373, 846 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Or[374]*374der, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered August 2, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 80-year-old plaintiff fell while exiting a Gristede’s supermarket on a February evening in 2003. She testified at her deposition that she “took a step and there was a slope and I lost my balance and went down, fell,” and that she had lost her balance due to the “uneven pavement” and the “incline of the slope.” The court properly found, upon consideration of all the evidence, defendants had sufficiently established that the condition cited by plaintiff as the cause of her injury was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Or[374]*374der, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered August 2, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 80-year-old plaintiff fell while exiting a Gristede’s supermarket on a February evening in 2003. She testified at her deposition that she “took a step and there was a slope and I lost my balance and went down, fell,” and that she had lost her balance due to the “uneven pavement” and the “incline of the slope.” The court properly found, upon consideration of all the evidence, defendants had sufficiently established that the condition cited by plaintiff as the cause of her injury was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 373, 846 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-namdor-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack