Santos v. Temco Service Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santos v. Temco Service Industries

295 A.D.2d 218, 744 N.Y.S.2d 20, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605

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

DecidedJune 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 218 (Santos v. Temco Service Industries) 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

Santos v. Temco Service Industries, 295 A.D.2d 218, 744 N.Y.S.2d 20, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2001, which, upon the grant of renewal and reargument, adhered to the court’s prior order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony to the effect that she discovered a waxy substance on her clothes after she slipped and fell, along with the affidavit of plaintiff’s witness, Sonia Morales, stating that she saw plaintiff fall on an area of flooring that was being waxed and had been left, prior to being buffed by defendant’s employee, with a residue of waxy material and without warnings or barricades, was sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether defendant was responsible for creating the hazard to which plaintiff attributes her harm (see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese of N. & S. Am., 213 AD2d 336). While defendant questions Ms. Morales’ credibility, issues as to witness credibility are not appropriately resolved on a mo[219]*219tion for summary judgment (see, Welch v Riverbay Corp., 273 AD2d 66).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2001, which, upon the grant of renewal and reargument, adhered to the court’s prior order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony to the effect that she discovered a waxy substance on her clothes after she slipped and fell, along with the affidavit of plaintiff’s witness, Sonia Morales, stating that she saw plaintiff fall on an area of flooring that was being waxed and had been left, prior to being buffed by defendant’s employee, with a residue of waxy material and without warnings or barricades, was sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether defendant was responsible for creating the hazard to which plaintiff attributes her harm (see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese of N. & S. Am., 213 AD2d 336). While defendant questions Ms. Morales’ credibility, issues as to witness credibility are not appropriately resolved on a mo[219]*219tion for summary judgment (see, Welch v Riverbay Corp., 273 AD2d 66).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 218, 744 N.Y.S.2d 20, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-temco-service-industries-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack