Scheer v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scheer v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

6 A.D.3d 520, 774 N.Y.S.2d 394

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 520 (Scheer v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.) 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

Scheer v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 520, 774 N.Y.S.2d 394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered March 5, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant made a [521]*521prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that none of its supermarket employees had any knowledge or reason to know of the grease spot on which the plaintiff slipped, or did anything to create the condition (see Meyer v Pathmark Stores, 290 AD2d 423 [2002]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition (see Sanchez v Delgado Travel Agency, 279 AD2d 623 [2001]; Becker v Waldbaum, Inc., 221 AD2d 396 [1995]; Kaufman v Man-Dell Food Stores, 203 AD2d 532 [1994]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered March 5, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant made a [521]*521prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that none of its supermarket employees had any knowledge or reason to know of the grease spot on which the plaintiff slipped, or did anything to create the condition (see Meyer v Pathmark Stores, 290 AD2d 423 [2002]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition (see Sanchez v Delgado Travel Agency, 279 AD2d 623 [2001]; Becker v Waldbaum, Inc., 221 AD2d 396 [1995]; Kaufman v Man-Dell Food Stores, 203 AD2d 532 [1994]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 520, 774 N.Y.S.2d 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheer-v-pathmark-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack