Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kathleen CAMPBELL, et al., Respondents, v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, d/b/a A & P Food Stores, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 2, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries which the injured plaintiff allegedly suffered when she slipped and fell on a piece of banana on the floor in the appellant's supermarket. The appellant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
The appellant made a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see, Dwoskin v. Burger King Corp., 249 A.D.2d 358, 671 N.Y.S.2d 494; Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436, 669 N.Y.S.2d 669). Therefore, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that the appellant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see, Bradish v. Tank Tech Corp., 216 A.D.2d 505, 628 N.Y.S.2d 807; Pirillo v. Longwood Assocs., 179 A.D.2d 744, 579 N.Y.S.2d 120). The plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and, consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774; Anderson v. Klein's Foods, Inc., 139 A.D.2d 904, 905, 527 N.Y.S.2d 897, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 835, 537 N.Y.S.2d 481, 534 N.E.2d 319; Katsoris v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511, 512, 663 N.Y.S.2d 984; Bernard v. Waldbaum, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 596, 597, 648 N.Y.S.2d 700; Bykofsky v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, 210 A.D.2d 280, 619 N.Y.S.2d 760; Maiorano v. Price Chopper Operating Co., 221 A.D.2d 698, 633 N.Y.S.2d 413).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 25, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)