From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fargot v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 18, 1999

September 13, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated December 22, 1998, as denied their respective cross-motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Sobel Kelly, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (David M. Goldman of counsel), for appellant Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Chesney Murphy, LLP, Bladwin, N.Y. (Michelle S. Russo of counsel), for appellant LG Other Associates, LLC.

Kahan Kahan, New York, N.Y. (Douglas E. Kahan of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, and WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cross motions are granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed.

For a defendant to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon his property, it must be established that a defective condition actually existed, and that the landowner either affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence ( see, Thomas v. Phillips, 246 A.D.2d 531; see also, Prisco v. Long Island University, 258 A.D.2d 451 [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that either the shopping cart that she was pushing or the sidewalk where the accident occurred was defective. In addition, the plaintiff did not show that the placement of the soda vending machine constituted a hazardous condition ( see, Digiannantonio v. Richmond Hill Sav. Bank, 212 A.D.2d 501). Moreover, the plaintiff merely speculated as to what caused the accident. Therefore, the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, and the plaintiff failed to show the existence of an issue of fact ( see, Gianchetta v. E.B. Marine, 258 A.D.2d 618 [2d Dept., Feb. 22, 1999]; Wright v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 277; Prisco v. Long Island Univ., supra).

BRACKEN, J.P., RITTER, ALTMAN, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fargot v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Fargot v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Alice Fargot, respondent, v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., et al., appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 13, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 743

Citing Cases

Zelenaya v. Rosengarten

"To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a so-called `slip and fall' case, a plaintiff must…

Moody v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

As a result, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by…