Feldmus v. Ryan Food Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentSantucci, J.
It is settled that “[a] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition” (Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; see Curzio v Tancredi, 8 AD3d 608 [2004]; Stumacher v Waldbaum, Inc., 274 AD2d 572 [2000]). Here the defendant Ryan Food Corp. (hereinafter the defendant) met its burden, and in response thereto the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Joachim v. 1824 Church Avenue, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Britto v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Strowman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.