Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Panzella v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 21, 1997

238 A.D.2d 490; 657 N.Y.S.2d 926; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Brandon v. Town of Southeast (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Blazynski v. A. Gareleck & Sons, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Katchalova v. Perchikov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Patino v. Lockformer Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Tranes v. Independent Health Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
West v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Ortega v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cu-sick, J.), dated March 4, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to included a copy of the pleadings with its motion papers (cf., Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692; Somers Realty Corp. v Big "V" Props., 149 AD2d 581) has not been preserved for appellate review.

It is well established that for a plaintiff in a slip and fall case to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff *491must demonstrate that the defendant either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. To furnish a basis for constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., 226 AD2d 590; Davis v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 205 AD2d 730). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is no evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that the defendant created the condition, or that it had actual or constructive notice of it. Thus, summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendant (see, Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra; Davis v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., supra). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.