Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990

Earle v. Channel Home Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 13, 1990

158 A.D.2d 507; 551 N.Y.S.2d 271; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1727

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Pellechia v. Partner Aviation Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Krakinowski v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Ehsan v. Trans Service Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Elliot v. Long Island Home, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Hartman v. Mountain Valley Brew Pub, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Bommarito v. Park Avenue Plaza Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Amadio v. Pathmark Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Ziajka v. Pace Plumbing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Skay v. Public Library of Rockville Centre (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Dapp v. Larson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Vinicio v. Marriott Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Leary v. North Shore University Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Melton v. E.P.S. Hair Design, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Garvin v. Rosenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*508In this slip-and-fall case, we find that the trial court properly set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that either of the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged unsafe conditiqn which caused him to fall and suffer injuries (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837-838; see also, Payne v Big V Supermarkets, 140 AD2d 422, 423). Moreover, the plaintiff merely speculated as to what caused him to fall. Failure to prove what actually caused him to fall where, as in this case, there could be many causes, was fatal to the plaintiff’s cause of action (see, Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020, 1021-1022; Felgenhauer v Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 94 AD2d 737).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.