Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

280 A.D.2d 279, 720 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 279 (Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & 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

Pascarella v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 280 A.D.2d 279, 720 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted since plaintiffs failed to submit competent evidence that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., creamy perfume on the floor of its cosmetics department, prior to plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall. Alleged statements by unidentified employees of defendant purportedly made to plaintiff, that they had seen the foreign substance on the floor prior to the incident and had asked someone to clean it up, were not competent evidence to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion since, inter alia, the alleged statements were not shown to have been made within the scope of the employees’ authority (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041; Cassanova v General Cinema Corp., 237 AD2d 155). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted since plaintiffs failed to submit competent evidence that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., creamy perfume on the floor of its cosmetics department, prior to plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall. Alleged statements by unidentified employees of defendant purportedly made to plaintiff, that they had seen the foreign substance on the floor prior to the incident and had asked someone to clean it up, were not competent evidence to defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion since, inter alia, the alleged statements were not shown to have been made within the scope of the employees’ authority (see, Loschiavo v Port Auth., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041; Cassanova v General Cinema Corp., 237 AD2d 155). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 279, 720 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pascarella-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack