Znaniecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Znaniecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 329, 725 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 329 (Znaniecki v. Wal-Mart 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

Znaniecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 329, 725 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered September 8, 2000, 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 of showing, as a matter of law, that it did not have constructive notice of the allegedly wet or damp floor inside its supermarket adjacent to the entranceway (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626). In opposition to the prima facie showing proffered by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the wet condition was visible and apparent, and whether it existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra; Kershner v Pathmark Stores, 280 AD2d 583; Chemont v Path-mark Supermarkets, 279 AD2d 545; Seneglia v FPL Foods, 273 AD2d 221). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered September 8, 2000, 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 of showing, as a matter of law, that it did not have constructive notice of the allegedly wet or damp floor inside its supermarket adjacent to the entranceway (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626). In opposition to the prima facie showing proffered by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the wet condition was visible and apparent, and whether it existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra; Kershner v Pathmark Stores, 280 AD2d 583; Chemont v Path-mark Supermarkets, 279 AD2d 545; Seneglia v FPL Foods, 273 AD2d 221). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 329, 725 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/znaniecki-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack