Rubin v. Reality Fashions, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1996 |
| Citation | 229 A.D.2d 1026,645 N.Y.S.2d 182 |
| Parties | Lynne RUBIN, Appellant, v. REALITY FASHIONS, LTD., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frankel and Russo by Peter Frankel, New York City, for appellant.
Jackson and Consumano by Marla Ostrover, New York City, for respondent.
Before GREEN, J.P., and LAWTON, WESLEY, DOERR and BOEHM, JJ.
Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court determined that plaintiff failed to establish both that defendant clothing store had a duty to provide seating in its dressing room and that the lack of seating was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. As a landowner, defendant owed a duty to plaintiff to act as a reasonable person in maintaining its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances (see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). Plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a designer of retail clothing stores, who averred that it was dangerous and contrary to safe management to fail to have benches, chairs or stools in dressing room areas. "Even where the relevant facts are uncontested, summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases, inasmuch as the issue of whether the defendant * * * acted reasonably under the circumstances can rarely be resolved as a matter of law" (Davis v. Federated Dept. Stores, 227 A.D.2d 514, 515, 642 N.Y.S.2d 707). Whether defendant was negligent in failing to provide seating and whether any such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries are questions that must be left to the trier of fact (see, Bowes v. Lerner Shops Intl., 422 So.2d 1041, 1042 [Fla.App.].
Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sniatecki v. Violet Realty, Inc.
...the defendant ... acted reasonably under the circumstances can rarely be resolved as a matter of law’ ” ( Rubin v. Reality Fashions, 229 A.D.2d 1026, 1027, 645 N.Y.S.2d 182;see generally Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 364, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131, 320 N.E.2d 853). Defendants correctly contend th......
-
Gartland v. Garcia
...was a Page 7 proximate cause of the injuries are questions that must be left to the trier of fact. Rubin v. Reality Fashions, Ltd. (1996), 645 N.Y.S.2d 182, 229 A.D.2d 1026; Bowes v. Lerner Shops Interntl., #196 (Fla.App.1982), 422 So.2d 1041. Regardless of whether we view New York's and Fl......