From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bodden v. Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-09404.

Decided April 5, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered September 26, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Sanders, Sanders, Block Woycik, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara E. Manes and Howard Eison of counsel), for appellant.

Torino Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Christine M. Capitolo of counsel), for respondent Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc., d/b/a Edwards Super Food Stores.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John Sandercock and Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent Spartan Security Services, Inc.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. "To impose liability upon the defendants, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous or defective condition and that the defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of it" ( Richardson v. Campanelli, 297 A.D.2d 794; see Staniewicz v. Stop Shop Super Food Market Co., 3 A.D.3d 487).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as there was no evidence that a dangerous condition existed ( see Marusevich v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 309 A.D.2d 839, 840; Crawford v. Pick Quick Foods, 300 A.D.2d 431, 432; Brenner v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 296 A.D.2d 519; Aquila v. Nathan's Famous, 284 A.D.2d 287; Maldonado v. Su Jong Lee, 278 A.D.2d 206; Pacht v. International Bus. Machs., 228 A.D.2d 422). "Rather, the proof established that the plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of [her] injuries" ( Robles v. Ascan Welding Serv., 200 A.D.2d 564; see Bennett v. Town of Brookhaven, 233 A.D.2d 356).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bodden v. Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Bodden v. Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CANDACE BODDEN, appellant, v. MAYFAIR SUPERMARKETS, INC., d/b/a EDWARDS…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Walsh v. Super Value, Inc.

The familiar formulation of the law of premises liability is that `[i]n order for a landowner to be liable in…

Torregrossa v. Enter. Holdings, Inc.

An owner of property has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition . . .…