Legal Opinion · Dissent

Feldmus v. Ryan Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 30, 2006Published

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

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Joachim v. 1824 Church Avenue, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  4. Britto v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API