Teleschevsky v. Red Apple Fruit & Grocery Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teleschevsky v. Red Apple Fruit & Grocery Corp.

71 A.D.3d 667, 894 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 667 (Teleschevsky v. Red Apple Fruit & Grocery 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

Teleschevsky v. Red Apple Fruit & Grocery Corp., 71 A.D.3d 667, 894 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated May 20, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over a wooden pallet which protruded several inches outward from beneath a display of watermelons in the defendants’ fruit and vegetable store. After joinder of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 3NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated May 20, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over a wooden pallet which protruded several inches outward from beneath a display of watermelons in the defendants’ fruit and vegetable store. After joinder of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 3NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 667, 894 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teleschevsky-v-red-apple-fruit-grocery-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack