Moody v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

288 A.D.2d 446, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11350
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 446 (Moody v. F.W. Woolworth Co.) 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
Moody v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 288 A.D.2d 446, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To impose liability on a defendant for a slip and fall on an allegedly dangerous condition on a floor, there must be evidence that the dangerous condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see, Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107; Bonilla v Starrett City, 270 AD2d 377; Patrick v Cho’s Fruit & Vegetables, 248 AD2d 692). The plaintiff testified in her deposition that her [447]*447pants were wet after she slipped and fell on the floor of the defendant’s store, that there was a plant display nearby, and that leaves and flower petals had fallen from a plant. She merely speculated as to the cause of the accident. As a result, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff could not identify what caused her to slip and fall. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Fargot v Pathmark Stores, 264 AD2d 708; Robinson v Lupo, 261 AD2d 525; Prisco v Long Is. Univ., 258 AD2d 451). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was correctly granted. Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dow v. Hermes Realty, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 7974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Farren v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.
119 A.D.3d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Duque v. Perez
95 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Laskowski v. 525 Park Avenue Condominium
93 A.D.3d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Davis v. Rochdale Village, Inc.
63 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hongach v. City of New York
8 A.D.3d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Zalko v. Sunrise Adult Health Care Center
7 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Santantonio v. Stop & Shop
5 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rodriguez v. Sixth President, Inc.
4 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Velazquez v. Caravan Bus Service, Inc.
4 A.D.3d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
LaFemina v. Brambell
2 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Curran v. Esposito
308 A.D.2d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Laventure v. Galeno
307 A.D.2d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Kroog v. Dirico
305 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Zelenaya v. Rosengarten
301 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Oberstein v. Mayfair Super Markets, Inc.
298 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 446, 732 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-fw-woolworth-co-nyappdiv-2001.