Resnick v. Waldbaums Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Resnick v. Waldbaums Supermarket

289 A.D.2d 385, 735 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12146

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 385 (Resnick v. Waldbaums Supermarket) 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

Resnick v. Waldbaums Supermarket, 289 A.D.2d 385, 735 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

[386]*386The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the oil patch that allegedly caused her to slip and fall (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Lombardo v Island Grill Diner, 276 AD2d 532; Schultz v New York Racing Assn., 253 AD2d 489; Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

[386]*386The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the oil patch that allegedly caused her to slip and fall (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Lombardo v Island Grill Diner, 276 AD2d 532; Schultz v New York Racing Assn., 253 AD2d 489; Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 385, 735 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resnick-v-waldbaums-supermarket-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack