Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Breuer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 10, 2001

289 A.D.2d 276; 734 N.Y.S.2d 204; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11943

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

DELSOL, OROSMAN v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF NEW YORK, I (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Delsol v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Delsol v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Dennehy-Murphy v. Nor-Topia Service Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Dragotta v. Walmart, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Quinn v. Holiday Health & Fitness Centers of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Franklin v. Omni Sagamore Hotel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Collins v. Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Levy v. Waldbaum, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Portanova v. Dynasty Meat Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Zarbaliyeva v. Fone Management Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated May 22, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

*277The defendant met its initial burden of showing, as a matter of law, that it neither created the alleged clear, slimy condition upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell nor had notice of that condition (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the clear condition was visible and apparent, and whether it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it (see, Kershner v Pathmark Stores, 280 AD2d 583; Chemont v Pathmark Supermarkets, 279 AD2d 545; Seneglia v FPL Foods, 273 AD2d 221). Furthermore, while the plaintiff argued that the defendant created the condition when its employee allegedly stacked a nearby display of bottles, there is no evidence, only speculation, that the condition was caused by the defendant’s employee (see, Licatese v Waldbaums, Inc., 277 AD2d 429; Meyerson v Waldbaum, Inc., 265 AD2d 535; Whitt v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 258 AD2d 648; Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc., 248 AD2d 436). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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