Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Speirs v. Dick's Clothing & Sporting Goods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 31, 2000

268 A.D.2d 581; 702 N.Y.S.2d 842; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 917

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Oberstein v. Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Veccia v. Clearmeadow Pistol Club, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Beadell v. Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Smith v. Target Corporation (District Court, N.D. New York 2023)
Schwartz v. Kings Third Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Schwartz v. Kings Third Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Shatzkin v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Arbusto v. Amerada Hess Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Cranston v. Nyack Public Schools (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Cicero v. Selden Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
D'Angelo v. DeLucia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Pedersen v. Kar, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Connor v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

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, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated September 19, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion, was conclusory, not based on the expert’s personal knowledge, and did not set forth any specific safety guidelines allegedly violated by the merchandise display base over which the injured plaintiff fell. Therefore, that affi*582davit was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Levitt v County of Suffolk, 145 AD2d 414, 415; Estate of Burke v Repetti & Co., 255 AD2d 483; see also, McCrorey v City of Buffalo, 210 AD2d 908).

The merchandise display base was an open and obvious condition readily observable through the reasonable use of one’s senses (Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534; see also, Russell v Archer Bldg. Ctrs., 219 AD2d 772, 773). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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