Gelpi v. 37th Ave. Realty Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 December 2000
• Citation: 721 N.Y.S.2d 380
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Maria Gelpi, appellant, v. 37th Avenue Realty Corp., defendant, 89-02 Food Corp., etc., respondent. 2000-02890 Submitted -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 380

721 N.Y.S.2d 380 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Maria Gelpi, appellant, v. 37th Avenue Realty Corp., defendant, 89-02 Food Corp., etc., respondent.

2000-02890

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Submitted - December 6, 2000

March 5, 2001

Loft & Zarkin (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [David L. Rahmanan and Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellant.

Steven G. Fauth, New York, N.Y. (Keegan A. Lee of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 2, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant 89-02 Food Corp., d/b/a/ Trade Fair Supermarket, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted against 89-02 Food Corp., d/b/a Trade Fair Supermarket, is reinstated.

The plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on garlic oil in the dairy aisle of the defendant 89-02 Food Corp., d/b/a Trade Fair Supermarket (hereinafter Trade Fair). At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that before she fell, she overheard a customer tell a store employee that he had a jar of minced garlic and "it was either broken or it was leaking, cracked or something". In addition, while near the dairy aisle, the plaintiff noticed a garlic odor. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff's statement was inadmissible hearsay, and therefore insufficient to defeat the motion by Trade Fair.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. However, a statement which is not offered to establish the truth of the facts asserted therein is not hearsay (see, Stern v Waldbaum, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 534). It is well established that out-of-court statements by unknown declarants are admissible to establish notice of a dangerous condition, even where the accuracy of the statements is not established (see, Morrissey v Riverbay Corp., 222 A.D.2d 234).

Where, as here, the truth of the statement is not at issue, "it does not matter that the original declarant is unknown and unavailable for cross-examination. Anyone who heard an out-of-court utterance which is offered merely to prove that it was made may testify to it, and have his veracity...