Schubert v. K-Mart Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schubert v. K-Mart Corp.

256 A.D.2d 456, 683 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13503

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 456 (Schubert v. K-Mart Corp.) 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

Schubert v. K-Mart Corp., 256 A.D.2d 456, 683 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated March 31, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this slip-and-fall case, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant, which presented evidence that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see, Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., 232 AD2d 596). It is not claimed that the defendant caused the condition. The injured plaintiffs deposition testimony as to comments made by a store clerk shortly after the accident is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition (see, Williams v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 236 AD2d 605).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated March 31, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this slip-and-fall case, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant, which presented evidence that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to fall (see, Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc., 232 AD2d 596). It is not claimed that the defendant caused the condition. The injured plaintiffs deposition testimony as to comments made by a store clerk shortly after the accident is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition (see, Williams v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 236 AD2d 605).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 456, 683 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schubert-v-k-mart-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack