Connor v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cartelli v. Cycle Power Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
- Suriano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
- Suriano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)
- Mangano v. 62 Seguine Ave Realty, LLC (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County 2025)
- Osterhoudt v. Acme Mkts., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Peranzo v. WFP Tower D Co. L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Gerner v. Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- JORDAN-PARKER, SHARON v. CITY OF BUFFALO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Jordan-Parker v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Jordan-Parker v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Calise v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matthews v. Vlad Restoration Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Pinto v. Selinger Ice Cream Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Sun Ho Chung v. Jeong Sook Joh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Cupo v. Karfunkel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Coudakis v. Twentieth Equities Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- 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)
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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 1, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The injured plaintiff tripped and fell over the prongs of a forklift which were allegedly raised four inches off the ground. The forklift was parked in a marked stall in the parking lot of the defendant’s store. The evidence disclosed that the forklift was in plain view, and that the injured plaintiff saw it and moved away to avoid it. On these facts, the Supreme Court correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that the forklift, whether its prongs were raised or lowered, did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition, was not a trap for the unwary, and was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiff’s senses (see, Chiranky v Marshalls, Inc., 273 AD2d 266; Speirs v Dick’s Clothing & Sporting Goods, 268 AD2d 581; Boehme v Edgar Fabrics, 248 AD2d 344; Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534; Russell v Archer Bldg. Ctrs., 219 AD2d 772). Under those circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant. Bracken, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.