Slintak v. Price Chopper Supermarkets
| Decision Date | 15 February 2011 |
| Citation | 916 N.Y.S.2d 528,81 A.D.3d 808 |
| Parties | Grecia E. SLINTAK, appellant, v. PRICE CHOPPER SUPERMARKETS, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steinberg Symer & Platt, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Ellen Fischer Bopp of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), dated November 23, 2009, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they did not create the hazardous condition upon which the plaintiff allegedlyslipped, or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Martinez v. Khaimov, 74 A.D.3d 1031, 906 N.Y.S.2d 274; Crapanzano v. Balkon Realty Co., 68 A.D.3d 1042, 890 N.Y.S.2d 355). The defendants' employee testified that she inspected the area where the plaintiff fell approximately 15 minutes before the accident, and observed no hazards ( see Mantzoutsos v. 150 St. Produce Corp., 76 A.D.3d 549, 907 N.Y.S.2d 34; Mauge v. Barrow St. Ale House, 70 A.D.3d 1016, 895 N.Y.S.2d 499; Crapanzano v. Balkon Realty Co., 68 A.D.3d 1042, 890 N.Y.S.2d 355; Yacovelli v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 1002, 888 N.Y.S.2d 750; Dennehy-Murphy v. Nor-Topia Serv. Ctr., Inc., 61 A.D.3d 629, 876 N.Y.S.2d 512; Collins v. Mayfair Super Mkts., Inc., 13 A.D.3d 330, 786 N.Y.S.2d 105). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants' showing in this regard.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dibenedetto v. Town Sports Int'l, LLC
...L.P., 88 A.D.3d 924, 925, 931 N.Y.S.2d 647;Walker v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 966, 967, 918 N.Y.S.2d 775;Slintak v. Price Chopper Supermarkets, 81 A.D.3d 808, 916 N.Y.S.2d 528). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the ...
-
Alexander v. Blink Fitness
...L.P., 88 A.D.3d 924, 925, 931 N.Y.S.2d 647; Walker v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 966, 967, 918 N.Y.S.2d 775; Slintak v. Price Chopper Supermarkets, 81 A.D.3d 808, 916 N.Y.S.2d 528). It appears as though plaintiff has no idea what caused the rope attachment to disconnect from the dual cross......
-
TORRES v. The USA.
...evidence is sufficient to show that the Government lacked constructive notice of the defect. See, e.g., Slintak v. Price Chopper Supermarkets, 916 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (no constructive notice where defendant's employee had inspected floor 15 minutes before accident); Van Winkl......
- 21ST Century Ins. Co. v. Davis