Santos v. Temco Service Industries
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- McNearney v. Thompson (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Vasquez v. Tapbrobane, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Royston v. FedEx Corp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Holloway v. Tully Constr. Co. Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Holloway v. Tully Constr. Co. Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Whitehurst v. 860 River LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Burgdoerfer v. CLK/HP 90 Merrick LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v. Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Latif v. Eugene Smilovic Housing Development Fund Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Villa v. Property Resources Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Santana v. 3410 Kingsbridge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Santana v. 3410 Kingsbridge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v. Reade (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v. Reade (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Medina v. 203 West 109th Street Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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
—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2001, which, upon the grant of renewal and reargument, adhered to the court’s prior order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff’s deposition testimony to the effect that she discovered a waxy substance on her clothes after she slipped and fell, along with the affidavit of plaintiff’s witness, Sonia Morales, stating that she saw plaintiff fall on an area of flooring that was being waxed and had been left, prior to being buffed by defendant’s employee, with a residue of waxy material and without warnings or barricades, was sufficient to raise triable issues as to whether defendant was responsible for creating the hazard to which plaintiff attributes her harm (see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese of N. & S. Am., 213 AD2d 336). While defendant questions Ms. Morales’ credibility, issues as to witness credibility are not appropriately resolved on a mo
We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.