Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Bryant v. Superior Computer Outlet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 1, 2004

5 A.D.3d 343; 772 N.Y.S.2d 529

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Sclafani v. Washington Mutual (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Cardia v. Willchester Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Gaines v. Shell-Mar Foods, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Miller v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Stern v. River Manor Care Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Stern v. River Manor Care Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Gallo v. Hempstead Turnpike, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gallo v. Hempstead Turnpike, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Albano v. Pete Milano's Discount Wines & Liquors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Colao v. Community Programs Center of Long Island, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Casey v. Clemente (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Cotto v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Zimkind v. Costco Wholesale 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

*344In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated October 25, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Superior Computer Outlet, Inc., and Hempstead Commons, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In support of their respective motions, the defendants presented evidence establishing that the concrete wheel stop on which the injured plaintiff tripped while leaving a store carrying a box containing a computer monitor was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 AD2d 646 [2002]; Plessias v Scalia Home for Funerals, 271 AD2d 423 [2000]). In response to the motions, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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