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.
Barbara PETERSON, appellant, v. TREECO PLAINVIEW, LTD., et al., respondents.
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 (Satterfield, J.), entered August 20, 2003, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Food Parade, Inc., d/b/a Shoprite, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Food Parade, Inc., d/b/a Shoprite, is denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant is reinstated.
Under the circumstances, the defendant Food Parade, Inc., d/b/a Shoprite (hereinafter the defendant), failed to meet its burden of establishing prima facie that it had no control over the parking lot at the time of the accident, and that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall (see DeGruccio v. 863 Jericho Turnpike Corp., 1 A.D.3d 472, 767 N.Y.S.2d 274; DeGiacomo v. Westchester County Healthcare Corp., 295 A.D.2d 395, 743 N.Y.S.2d 548; Smalls v. New York City Hous. Auth. Tenants Assn. of Woodside, 276 A.D.2d 619, 715 N.Y.S.2d 322; cf. Welwood v. Association for Children with Down Syndrome, 248 A.D.2d 707, 670 N.Y.S.2d 556).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: July 12, 2004
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)