Markowitz v. Supermarkets General Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Schneider v. Analisa Salon LTD

    270 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    We affirm. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants either created the dangerous condition alleged, or had actual or constructive notice thereof and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see, Markowitz v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 493; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 ). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.

  2. West v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

    259 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    lement to summary judgment as a matter of law in a slip and fall case involving debris on a supermarket floor, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the allegedly dangerous condition [that caused the accident] or had actual or constructive notice of it" ( Panzella v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, 238 A.D.2d 490; see also, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; Wauters v. Shop Rite, 244 A.D.2d 404; Gass v. Inserra Supermarkets, 243 A.D.2d 609; Palestrini v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 818; Kaufman v. Man-Dell Food Stores, 203 A.D.2d 532). Moreover, "[t]o constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the] defendant's employees to discover and remedy it" ( Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837; Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625; Wauters v. Shop Rite, supra; Katsons v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511, 512; Markowitz v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 493, 494). Here, the plaintiffs submissions failed to establish the existence of material issues of fact with respect to her claim that the substance on the floor of the defendant's supermarket existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident in order to have permitted the defendant's employees to discover and remove it ( see, Palestrini v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra; Wauters v. Shop Rite, supra; Markowitz v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., supra).