Byrd v. Walmart, Inc.
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03796,128 A.D.3d 629,8 N.Y.S.3d 428 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-00176 |
| Parties | Barbara J. BYRD, appellant, v. WALMART, INC., respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 629
8 N.Y.S.3d 428
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03796
Barbara J. BYRD, appellant
v.
WALMART, INC., respondent.
2014-00176
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 6, 2015.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.
Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, Northport, N.Y. (Thomas M. O'Connor and Patricia A. O'Connor of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Marx, J.), dated August 8, 2013, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
According to the plaintiff, at approximately 5:40 p.m. on or about August 3, 2009, in a store operated by the defendant in Newburgh, she slipped on a puddle of liquid on the floor and fell, sustaining injuries. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for those injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the evidence established that it did not have notice of the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff's fall for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Santiago v. HMS Host Corp., 125 A.D.3d 838, 4 N.Y.S.3d 274 ; see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. The City of New York
...MP's employees did not have a reasonable time to remedy that condition before plaintiff s accident occurred (see Byrd v. Walmart, Inc.,128 A.D.3d 629,630 [2d Dept 2015]; Rallo v. Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 705, 706 [2d Dept 2014]; Stasiak v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 281 A.D.2d 533,......
-
Smith v. The City of New York
...MP's employees did not have a reasonable time to remedy that condition before plaintiff s accident occurred (see Byrd v. Walmart, Inc.,128 A.D.3d 629,630 [2d Dept 2015]; Rallo v. Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 705, 706 [2d Dept 2014]; Stasiak v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 281 A.D.2d 533,......
-
Decker v. State
...to them, as they commenced a related action against Woodmere in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (see Borawski v. State of New York, 128 A.D.3d at 629, 8 N.Y.S.3d 399 ; Witko v. State of New York, 212 A.D.2d 889, 890–891, 622 N.Y.S.2d 369 ; Bonaventure v. New York State Thruway Auth., 108 A......
-
Leckie v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc.
...violation of defendant's internal rules or guidelines is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Byrd v. Walmart, Inc., 128 A.D.3d 629, 8 N.Y.S.3d 428 [2d Dept 2015]; Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 319, 819 N.Y.S.2d 250 [1st Dept 2006], aff'd 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 ......