Sook Ja Lee v. Yi Mei Bakery Corp.

305 A.D.2d 579, 761 N.Y.S.2d 78
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 579 (Sook Ja Lee v. Yi Mei Bakery 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
Sook Ja Lee v. Yi Mei Bakery Corp., 305 A.D.2d 579, 761 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Sook Ja Lee when she slipped and fell due to an alleged accumulation of water on the floor of the defendant’s bakery. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that it took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet condition on its premises caused by a lengthy rainstorm (see Miller v Gimbel Bros., 262 NY 107 [1933]). In this regard, the defendant averred that a rubberized mat was placed on the street side of the front door and another one about one foot inside the front door, and the defendant’s employees were instructed to mop the floor, as necessary, which they did approximately four times during the morning of the accident prior to the injured plaintiffs fall (see [580]*580Negron v St. Patrick’s Nursing Home, 248 AD2d 687 [1998]; Kovelsky v City Univ. of N.Y., 221 AD2d 234, 235 [1995]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Assing v United Rubber Supply Co., 126 AD2d 590 [1987]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Price v. BFP Tower C Co., LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 02338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Haque v. Reade, Inc.
70 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Avenue of the Americas, LLC
65 A.D.3d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hackbarth v. McDonalds Corp.
31 A.D.3d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Scarpinito v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.
26 A.D.3d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ford v. Citibank, N.A.
11 A.D.3d 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 579, 761 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sook-ja-lee-v-yi-mei-bakery-corp-nyappdiv-2003.