From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vanderwater v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, BALIO AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Sheryl Vanderwater was injured when the automatic door at defendant's store struck her while she stood next to it, looking out the window. A motion for summary judgment must be denied "if there is any significant doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, or if there is even arguably such an issue" ( Hourigan v. McGarry, 106 A.D.2d 845, 845-846, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 637). Moreover, summary judgment is seldom appropriate in a negligence action ( see, Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 364-365). Arguably, an issue of fact exists whether defendant's automatic door constitutes a dangerous condition.


Summaries of

Vanderwater v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Vanderwater v. Sears

Case Details

Full title:SHERYL VANDERWATER AND ROBERT VANDERWATER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 495

Citing Cases

Zeller v. Stasi

Steakhouse has not met its burden. Summary judgment is seldom appropriate in a negligence action ( see…

Thorn v. Wilmorite, Inc.

Supreme Court properly denied the motion of third-party defendant, K-Mart Corporation (K-Mart), for summary…