Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1985 |
| Parties | , 480 N.E.2d 740 Paquita NEGRI et al., Appellants, v. STOP AND SHOP, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 107 A.D.2d 738, 484 N.Y.S.2d 100, should be reversed, with costs, and remitted to that court for consideration of the facts and of other issues not previously addressed.
The record contains some evidence tending to show that defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition which allegedly caused injuries to its customer. There was testimony that the injured plaintiff, while shopping in defendant's store, fell backward, did not come into contact with the shelves, but hit her head directly on the floor where "a lot of broken jars" of baby food lay; that the baby food was "dirty and messy"; that a witness in the immediate vicinity of the accident did not hear any jars falling from the shelves or otherwise breaking during the 15 or 20 minutes prior to the accident; and that the aisle had not been cleaned or inspected for at least 50 minutes prior to the accident--indeed, some evidence was adduced that it was at least two hours.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs and according plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference (see, Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N.Y. 584, 123 N.E.2d 79), it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to draw the necessary inference that a slippery condition was created by jars of baby food which had fallen and broken a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy the condition. (Cf. Cameron v. Bohack Co., 27 A.D.2d 362, 365, 280 N.Y.S.2d 483; Torregrossa v. Bohack Corp., 81 A.D.2d 884, 439 N.Y.S.2d 55, Wheeler v. Deutch, 242 App.Div. 641, 272 N.Y.S. 161.) Plaintiffs having made out a prima facie case, it was error to dismiss the complaint. If the jury verdict be deemed by the Appellate Division to be against the weight of the evidence, that court's power is limited to ordering a new trial. (Sagorsky v. Malyon, supra; see also, Imbrey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 286 N.Y. 434, 440-441, 36 N.E.2d 651.)
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Friedman Furs & Fashion, LLC
...satisfied the requisite burden of proof, the nonmovant is entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference ( see e.g. Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625 [1985];Louniakov v. M.R.O.D. Realty, 282 A.D.2d 657 [2001] ). Further, “the motion should not be granted where the facts are in dispu......
-
Cruz v. New York City Transit Authority
...( see, Schneider v. Kings Highway Hosp. Center, 67 N.Y.2d 743, 745, 500 N.Y.S.2d 95, 490 N.E.2d 1221; Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626, 480 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740; Iannelli v. Powers, supra, 114 A.D.2d at 160, 498 N.Y.S.2d 377). Examining the evidence in that light, we conclud......
-
Wilson v. Phx. House & Sidney Hargrove
...in the complaint and review the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Negri v. Stop and Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740 (1985). Utilizing that analysis, plaintiff makes out a cause of action for housing discrimination based on her disabilit......
-
Black v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc.
...on the floor ( see Mueller v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 276 A.D.2d 819, 819-820, 713 N.Y.S.2d 789 [2000]; cf. Negri v. Stop & Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 626, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740 [1985] ). However, constructive notice can also be established by evidence that the property owner was aware of......