Wodowski v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wodowski v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

265 A.D.2d 819, 696 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 819 (Wodowski v. Wegmans Food Markets, 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

Wodowski v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 265 A.D.2d 819, 696 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by William A. Wodowski, Jr. (plaintiff) when he allegedly slipped and fell on a grape in defendant’s store. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant met its initial burden (see, Van Winkle v Price Chopper Operating Co., 239 AD2d 692, 693; cf., Gebo v Jefferson Lewis Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 248 AD2d 1025), and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, neither the accident schedule from defendant’s store nor defendant’s general awareness that produce might occasionally fall to the floor is sufficient to constitute constructive notice of a recurrent dangerous condition (see, Van Winkle v Price Chopper Operating Co., supra, at 693; Snyder v Golub Corp., 199 AD2d 776, 776-777, lv denied 83 NY2d 754). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by William A. Wodowski, Jr. (plaintiff) when he allegedly slipped and fell on a grape in defendant’s store. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant met its initial burden (see, Van Winkle v Price Chopper Operating Co., 239 AD2d 692, 693; cf., Gebo v Jefferson Lewis Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 248 AD2d 1025), and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, neither the accident schedule from defendant’s store nor defendant’s general awareness that produce might occasionally fall to the floor is sufficient to constitute constructive notice of a recurrent dangerous condition (see, Van Winkle v Price Chopper Operating Co., supra, at 693; Snyder v Golub Corp., 199 AD2d 776, 776-777, lv denied 83 NY2d 754). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 819, 696 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wodowski-v-wegmans-food-markets-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack