McLean v. Shanghai City Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 00057
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 2026
DocketIndex No. 155962/21; Appeal No. 5476; Case No. 2025-02502
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 00057 (McLean v. Shanghai City 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
McLean v. Shanghai City Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 00057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

McLean v Shanghai City Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 00057)
McLean v Shanghai City Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 00057
Decided on January 08, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 08, 2026
Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, Chan, JJ.

Index No. 155962/21|Appeal No. 5476|Case No. 2025-02502|

[*1]Erin Hanlon McLean, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Shanghai City Corp. Doing Business as Joe's Shanghai, Defendant-Appellant.


Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLP, Elmsford (Lauren R. Turkel of counsel), for appellant.

Mejias, Milgrim, Alvarado & Lindo, P.C., Glen Cove (Miguel A. Alvarado of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered March 21, 2025, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell while walking down a staircase at defendant's restaurant. Defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as it did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff could only speculate about the cause of the accident. (see Taveras v 1149 Webster Realty Corp., 134 AD3d 495, 496-497 [1st Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 958 [2016]; cf. Ellis v City of New York, 188 AD3d 594, 594-595 [1st Dept 2020]). Further, plaintiff's statements in her affirmation in opposition to the motion that she slipped on a "slippery substance" did not contradict her deposition testimony, in which she testified that "something slippery" caused her to fall (see Bosshart v Pryce, 276 AD2d 314, 315 [1st Dept 2000]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 8, 2026



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

Related

Ellis v. City of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 06948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Bosshart v. Pryce
276 A.D.2d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 00057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-shanghai-city-corp-nyappdiv-2026.