Trimarchi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trimarchi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 838 (Trimarchi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.) 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

Trimarchi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment of establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, and in response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply here, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defect or condition which caused the accident was in the exclusive control of the defendant (see Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 242 AD2d 268, 269 [1997]; Meegan v Westbury Prop. Inv. Co., 234 AD2d 433 [1996]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, 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, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment of establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, and in response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply here, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defect or condition which caused the accident was in the exclusive control of the defendant (see Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 242 AD2d 268, 269 [1997]; Meegan v Westbury Prop. Inv. Co., 234 AD2d 433 [1996]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 838, 769 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trimarchi-v-genovese-drug-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack