From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irving v. Foodtown Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 31, 2001.

November 19, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated November 13, 2000, as granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Rovegno Taylor, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Robert B. Taylor of counsel), for appellant.

Torino Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Christine M. Capitolo of counsel), for respondent Foodtown Supermarket, Inc.

Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert T. Baer of counsel), for respondent Lawrence Oaks Limited Partnership.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the debris on the sidewalk outside the exit of the supermarket (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly hazardous condition was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendants' employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, supra; Kershner v. Pathmark Stores, 280 A.D.2d 583; Chemont v. Pathmark Supermarkets, 279 A.D.2d 545; Seneglia v. FPL Foods, 273 A.D.2d 221). The plaintiff submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motions for summary judgment wherein she stated for the first time that the debris was originally a liquid which had dried and, therefore, had been on the sidewalk a long period of time. However, the affidavit was clearly designed to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff's earlier deposition testimony in which she stated that she was not able to identify the debris (see, Barretta v. Trump Plaza Hotel Casino, 278 A.D.2d 262; Gadonniex v. Lombardi, 277 A.D.2d 281; Fontana v. Fortunoff, 246 A.D.2d 626; Garvin v. Rosenberg, 204 A.D.2d 388; Prunty v. Keltie's Bum Steer, 163 A.D.2d 595).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Irving v. Foodtown Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Irving v. Foodtown Supermarket, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAISY IRVING, appellant, v. FOODTOWN SUPERMARKET, INC., ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 76

Citing Cases

Ruck v. Levittown Norse Associates, LLC

Thus, the plaintiff contended that he had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant had…

Errett v. Neck Park Dist

Any elevation difference existing between the two sides of the stone wall was readily observable to those…