Slater v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slater v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.

282 A.D.2d 445, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3291

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 445 (Slater v. Stop & Shop Supermarket 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

Slater v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 282 A.D.2d 445, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated June 20, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Marukos v Waldbaums, Inc., 267 AD2d 434; Sims v Waldbaum, Inc., 246 AD2d 642; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated June 20, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Marukos v Waldbaums, Inc., 267 AD2d 434; Sims v Waldbaum, Inc., 246 AD2d 642; Cuddy v Waldbaum, Inc., 230 AD2d 703). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 445, 722 N.Y.S.2d 407, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slater-v-stop-shop-supermarket-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack