VANDERWATER v. SEARS (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Sheryl VANDERWATER and Robert Vanderwater, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SEARS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 13, 2000

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

Beth A. Brownson, Syracuse, for Defendant-Appellant. P. Michael Shanley, Oswego, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

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, 484 N.Y.S.2d 243, 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, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131, 320 N.E.2d 853). Arguably, an issue of fact exists whether defendant's automatic door constitutes a dangerous condition.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network