Smith v. Senpike Mall Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Senpike Mall Co.

249 A.D.2d 936, 671 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5028

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 936 (Smith v. Senpike Mall 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

Smith v. Senpike Mall Co., 249 A.D.2d 936, 671 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Defendant met its initial burden, and plaintiff’s bare conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations in opposition are insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The mere presence of an employee with a mop and pail in the vicinity of the hallway where plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the hallway (see, Lewis v Wegmans Food Mkts., 234 AD2d 994). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Defendant met its initial burden, and plaintiff’s bare conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations in opposition are insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The mere presence of an employee with a mop and pail in the vicinity of the hallway where plaintiff fell is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the hallway (see, Lewis v Wegmans Food Mkts., 234 AD2d 994). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 936, 671 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-senpike-mall-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack