Doize v. Holiday Inn Ronkonkoma
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Selimaj v. Almonte Hgts. Food Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Chermak v. Benegas (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County 2024)
- Tu Casa En Quisqueya, Inc. v. Nieves (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Clark v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Yerry v. Whole Food Mkt. Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Santiago v. Joyce (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Derise v. Jaak 773, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Green v. Quincy Amusements, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Green v. Quincy Amusements, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- 560 West 165th Street Associates L.P. v. Figueroa (Civil Court of the City of New York 2013)
- Baillargeon v. Kings County Waterproofing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Baillargeon v. Tuttle Roofing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Quinones v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Lafia v. Baldwin Summer Program Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Latalladi v. Peter Luger Steakhouse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Dykeman v. Heht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Fitzsimmons v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Baillargeon v. Kings County Waterproofing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Artessa v. City of Utica (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
Ordered the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order is modified accordingly; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a foreign substance in the bathtub of a hotel room owned by the defendant. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court, and it “should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues” (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). “The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or to determine matters of credibility but merely to determine whether such issues exist” (Roth v Barreto, 289 AD2d 557, 558 [2001]). Moreover, in determining a motion for summary judgment, facts alleged by the nonmoving party and inferences which may be drawn from them must be accepted as true (see O’Neill v Town of Fishkill, 134 AD2d 487, 489 [1987]). Under the circumstances, and applying that standard, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the foreign substance existed at all and whether the defendant created the alleged dangerous condition by negligently cleaning its bathtub (see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).
The plaintiffs contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see Oliveri v Oliveri, 251 AD2d 561,
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.