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.
Sylvia Flaim, appellant, v. Hex Food, Inc., doing business as Price Choice, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Argued-November 5, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
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.), dated September 24, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Hex Food Inc., doing business as Price Choice, and Hex Food, Inc., doing business as Price Rite Food Market, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a so-called “U-boat” dolly which had been left unattended in the middle of a supermarket aisle. The supermarket was owned by the defendants Hex Food, Inc., doing business as Price Choice, and Hex Food Inc., doing business as Price Rite Food Market (hereinafter together the defendants). At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that, at the time of her accident, five or six closed boxes were stacked on top of the U-boat dolly.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants established, prima facie, that the U-boat dolly in the aisle was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Stern v. Costco Wholesale, 63 AD3d 1139, 1140; Neiderbach v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 56 AD3d 632, 633; Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 AD3d 855; Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 844; cf. Gradwohl v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 AD3d 634, 636-637). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). For the same reason, the plaintiff failed to establish her own entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
MASTRO, J.P., COVELLO, ANGIOLILLO and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-10353 (Index No. 15922 /07)
Decided: December 14, 2010
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)