Simpson v. Supermarkets General Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. Supermarkets General Corp.

282 A.D.2d 293, 723 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901

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

DecidedApril 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 293 (Simpson v. Supermarkets General 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

Simpson v. Supermarkets General Corp., 282 A.D.2d 293, 723 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of the hazardous condition on its premises alleged to have caused the complained of harm. Plaintiff adduced no evidence to show that the alleged hazardous condition was visible and apparent before the accident and that it existed for a sufficient length of time to allow defendant to observe and remove it (see, Luzinski v Kenvic Assocs., 242 AD2d 246; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). Plaintiffs failure to make that showing “creates the possibility that the condition may have emanated only moments before the accident, through no fault or with no knowledge of the defendant, any other conclusion being pure speculation” (Grier v Macy & Co., 173 AD2d 238). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, in response to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of the hazardous condition on its premises alleged to have caused the complained of harm. Plaintiff adduced no evidence to show that the alleged hazardous condition was visible and apparent before the accident and that it existed for a sufficient length of time to allow defendant to observe and remove it (see, Luzinski v Kenvic Assocs., 242 AD2d 246; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837). Plaintiffs failure to make that showing “creates the possibility that the condition may have emanated only moments before the accident, through no fault or with no knowledge of the defendant, any other conclusion being pure speculation” (Grier v Macy & Co., 173 AD2d 238). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 293, 723 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-supermarkets-general-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack