Kaufman v. Starbucks Corp.

<div>Kaufman v Starbucks Corp. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02203

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Kaufman v Starbucks Corp.</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02203</p> <p>April 14, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Carol Kaufman, Plaintiff-Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Starbucks Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: April 14, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 152147/22|Appeal No. 6339|Case No. 2025-03527|</p> <p>Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &amp; Dicker LLP, New York (Julia Audibert of counsel), for appellant.</p> <p>John E. Lavelle Law Firm P.C., Williston Park (John E. Lavelle of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Morales-Minerva, J.), entered May 5, 2025, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.</p> <p>Plaintiff, who fell in defendant's coffee shop after she allegedly "collided" with one or more other persons, sues defendant for the injuries she allegedly sustained in the fall on the theory that the collision resulted from overcrowding in the store. The only evidence defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was the testimony of a barista who was not working at the time of plaintiff's accident and therefore could not attest to the conditions in the store at that time. Defendant failed to carry its burden as the movant to present evidence establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (<i>see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.</i>, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; <i>Zuckerman v City of New York</i>, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: April 14, 2026</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>