Ortiz v. Jimtion Food Corp.

274 A.D.2d 508, 712 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 24, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 508 (Ortiz v. Jimtion Food 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
Ortiz v. Jimtion Food Corp., 274 A.D.2d 508, 712 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated September 21, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Gilberto Lugo Ortiz (hereinafter Ortiz) slipped and fell on accumulated snow and ice in the back lot of the defendant C-Town’s supermarket. That store was leased from the defendant Hartford Leasing Corp. To get up, Ortiz reached out and grabbed a branch. When he let go, the branch struck him in the eye, causing injury.

Liability may not be imposed upon a party who “ ‘merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event’ but was not one of its causes” (Shatz v Kutshers Country Club, 247 AD2d 375; Poggiali v Town of Babylon, 219 AD2d 626; Williams v Envelope Tr. Corp., 186 AD2d 797). Here, the snow and ice furnished the occasion for the plaintiff Gilberto Ortiz’s fall, but was not the proximate cause of his injury.

Moreover, the action of the plaintiff Gilberto Ortiz in grabbing the branch to pull himself back up and upon releasing the branch, being struck in the eye, was not a normal or foreseeable consequence of any situation created by the defendants (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rant v. Locust Valley High School
123 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Dillenbeck v. Shovelton
114 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Cangro v. Noah Builders, Inc.
52 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Beadleston v. American Tissue Corp.
41 A.D.3d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Campbell v. Central New York Regional Transportation Authority
28 A.D.3d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Santodonato v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
6 Misc. 3d 686 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Feder v. Tower Air, Inc.
12 A.D.3d 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Scarver v. County of Erie
2 A.D.3d 1384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D.2d 508, 712 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-jimtion-food-corp-nyappdiv-2000.