Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Gatanas v. Picnic Garden B.B.Q. Buffet House

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 12, 2003

305 A.D.2d 457; 761 N.Y.S.2d 77

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Cangemi v. Burgan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Ellison v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
Kiskiel v. Stone Edge Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Hartley v. Waldbaum, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Cusack v. Peter Luger, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Xhika v. Trizechahn Regional Pooling, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Collins v. Laro Service System of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Hagan v. P.C. Richards & Sons, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Glacy v. 1109 Manhattan Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 3, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of water on the floor of the defendant’s restaurant. She contends that the condition which caused her fall was created when an employee of the defendant spilled water from a pitcher while filling glasses before carrying them to the customers’ tables. Since there is no proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the spilled water, and the plaintiff’s claim that an employee created the condition was mere speculation, the defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised by the plaintiff. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see Sieber v Estee Lauder, Inc., 293 AD2d 596 [2002]; Moorman v Huntington Hosp., 262 AD2d 290 [1999]; Ginsberg v Waldbaum, Inc., 228 AD2d 410, 411 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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