Markowitz v. Supermarkets General Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markowitz v. Supermarkets General Corp.

237 A.D.2d 493, 655 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 493 (Markowitz v. Supermarkets General Corp.) 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

Markowitz v. Supermarkets General Corp., 237 A.D.2d 493, 655 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated March 11, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[494]*494Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Jeanette Markowitz alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a store owned by the defendant. However, in opposition to the prima facie case proffered by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., 232 AD2d 596). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. 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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated March 11, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[494]*494Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Jeanette Markowitz alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a store owned by the defendant. However, in opposition to the prima facie case proffered by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625; Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., 232 AD2d 596). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 493, 655 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markowitz-v-supermarkets-general-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack