Peterson v. Treeco Plainview, Ltd.

9 A.D.3d 402, 780 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9686
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 402 (Peterson v. Treeco Plainview, Ltd.) 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
Peterson v. Treeco Plainview, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 402, 780 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered August 20, 2003, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Food Parade, Inc., doing'business as Shoprite, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Food Parade, Inc., doing business as Shoprite, is denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant is reinstated.

Under the circumstances, the defendant Food Parade, Inc., doing business as Shoprite (hereinafter the defendant), failed to meet its burden of establishing prima facie that it had no control over the parking lot at the time of the accident, and that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall (see DeGruccio v 863 Jericho Turnpike Corp., 1 AD3d 472 [2003]; DeGiacomo v Westchester County Healthcare Corp., 295 AD2d 395 [2002]; Smalls v New York City Hous. Auth. Tenants Assn. of Woodside, 276 AD2d 619 [2000]; cf. Welwood v Association for Children with Down Syndrome, 248 AD2d 707 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sotomayor v. Pafos Realty, LLC
43 A.D.3d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.3d 402, 780 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-treeco-plainview-ltd-nyappdiv-2004.