Yerry v. Whole Food Mkt. Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019–11392,Index No. 610791/17 |
| Parties | Judith YERRY, etc., appellant, v. WHOLE FOOD MARKET GROUP, INC., etc., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
208 A.D.3d 733
174 N.Y.S.3d 392
Judith YERRY, etc., appellant,
v.
WHOLE FOOD MARKET GROUP, INC., etc., et al., respondents.
2019–11392
Index No. 610791/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—May 16, 2022
August 17, 2022
Victor A. Carr, Mineola, NY (Thomas J. Stock of counsel), for appellant.
Fishman McIntyre Levine Samansky, P.C., New York, NY (Mitchell B. Levine of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Randy Sue Marber, J.), entered September 26, 2019. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Christopher Yerry (hereinafter Yerry) commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on a puddle of liquid inside the defendants' supermarket. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Yerry appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, Yerry died, and Judith Yerry, as administrator of Yerry's estate, was substituted for Yerry.
"A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie
showing 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" ( Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 A.D.3d 522, 523, 855 N.Y.S.2d 155 [internal quotation marks omitted]). " ‘Once a defendant has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the defendant has a reasonable time to undertake remedial actions that are reasonable and appropriate under all of the circumstances’ " ( Generoso v. Miller's Ale House, Inc., 185 A.D.3d 791, 792, 125 N.Y.S.3d 569, quoting Friedman v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 491, 491–492, 755 N.Y.S.2d 412 ). "The court's function on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or to determine matters of credibility but merely to determine whether such issues exist" (
Doize v. Holiday Inn Ronkonkoma, 6 A.D.3d 573, 574, 774...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiCrescento v FPG CH 350 Henry, LLC
...has been certified as accurate by the stenographer and its accuracy has not been challenged 14 (see Yerry v Whole Food Mkt. Group, Inc., 208 A.D.3d 733, 734 [2d Dept 2022]; Celestin 40 Empire Blvd., Inc., 168 A.D.3d 805, 808 [2d Dept 2019]; Thomas v City of New York, 124 A.D.3d 872, 873 [2d......
-
Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.
...Corp. v. Browne, 157 A.D.3d 842, 843, 69 N.Y.S.3d 332, quoting Levitt v. County of Suffolk, 166 A.D.2d 421, 423, 560 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; see 174 N.Y.S.3d 392 Derby v. Bitan, 112 A.D.3d 881, 882, 977 N.Y.S.2d 405 ; Abrams v. Berelson, 94 A.D.3d 782, 784, 942 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). Here, although the pla......