Shohen v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shohen v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc.

243 A.D.2d 371, 665 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 371 (Shohen v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, 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

Shohen v. D'Agostino Supermarkets, Inc., 243 A.D.2d 371, 665 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, denied defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment. The evidence submitted by plaintiff demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged bunching and puffing of the runners at the entrance of the store and whether it took reasonable precautions to remedy this condition (see, Giambrone v New York Yankees, 181 AD2d 547). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, denied defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied defendant D’Agostino’s motion for summary judgment. The evidence submitted by plaintiff demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged bunching and puffing of the runners at the entrance of the store and whether it took reasonable precautions to remedy this condition (see, Giambrone v New York Yankees, 181 AD2d 547). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 371, 665 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shohen-v-dagostino-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack