Vanderwater v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanderwater v. Sears

277 A.D.2d 1056, 716 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11405

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1056 (Vanderwater v. Sears) 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

Vanderwater v. Sears, 277 A.D.2d 1056, 716 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Sheryl Vanderwater was injured when the automatic door at defendant’s store struck her while she stood next to it, looking out the window. A motion for summary judgment must be denied “if there is any significant doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, or if there is even arguably such an issue” (Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845, 845-846, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637). Moreover, summary judgment is seldom appropriate in a negligence action (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365). Arguably, an issue of fact exists whether defendant’s automatic door constitutes a dangerous condition. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Sheryl Vanderwater was injured when the automatic door at defendant’s store struck her while she stood next to it, looking out the window. A motion for summary judgment must be denied “if there is any significant doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, or if there is even arguably such an issue” (Hourigan v McGarry, 106 AD2d 845, 845-846, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637). Moreover, summary judgment is seldom appropriate in a negligence action (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365). Arguably, an issue of fact exists whether defendant’s automatic door constitutes a dangerous condition. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1056, 716 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderwater-v-sears-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack