Weiner v. Saks Fifth Avenue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. Saks Fifth Avenue

266 A.D.2d 390, 698 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11526

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 390 (Weiner v. Saks Fifth Avenue) 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

Weiner v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 266 A.D.2d 390, 698 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated September 23, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Lucille Weiner, while a customer in the defendant’s store, allegedly tripped over the legs of a clothing rack as she was walking down an aisle between the racks. The Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The defendant had no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable, such as the narrowness of a pathway created by clothing racks (see, Lamia v Federated Dept. Stores, 263 AD2d 498; Sewer v Fat Albert’s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 (McCarty, J.), dated September 23, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Lucille Weiner, while a customer in the defendant’s store, allegedly tripped over the legs of a clothing rack as she was walking down an aisle between the racks. The Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The defendant had no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable, such as the narrowness of a pathway created by clothing racks (see, Lamia v Federated Dept. Stores, 263 AD2d 498; Sewer v Fat Albert’s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 390, 698 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-saks-fifth-avenue-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack