Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

296 A.D.2d 486, 745 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 486 (Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery 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
Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 A.D.2d 486, 745 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated September 4, 2001, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While shopping for groceries in the defendant’s store, the plaintiff slipped and fell to the floor. She testified at an examination before trial that the fall occurred as she was reaching for tea on a shelf, when she stepped with her left foot onto a flat piece of cardboard on the floor, which slid. She further testified that when she entered the aisle with her grocery cart, she saw flat pieces of cardboard on the floor near the shelves, and a stock boy who was unpacking boxes. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the flat cardboard on the floor did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition and “was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiffs senses” (Connor v Taylor Rental Ctr., 278 AD2d 270; see Chiranky v Marshalls, Inc., 273 AD2d 266; Maravalli v Home Depot U.S.A., 266 AD2d 437; Boehme v Edgar Fabrics, 248 AD2d [487]*487344). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see Sandler v Patel, 288 AD2d 459). Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Catman v. Back Water Grille LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 01223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Villalba v. Daughney
183 N.Y.S.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Sprott v. IKEA N.Y., LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Sosa v. RS 2001, Inc.
106 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Chavanne v. BZL Cleaning Solution, Inc.
84 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Neiderbach v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
56 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Vergara v. A & S Twins Construction Corp.
41 A.D.3d 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Bernth v. King Kullen Grocery Co.
36 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Leib v. Silo Restaurant, Inc.
26 A.D.3d 359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Tenenbaum v. Best 21 Ltd.
15 A.D.3d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rosa v. Southren
8 A.D.3d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Mansueto v. Worster
1 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rogers v. Spirit Cruises, Inc.
195 Misc. 2d 335 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.D.2d 486, 745 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoen-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-2002.