Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

De Conno v. Golub Corp.

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

Decided November 12, 1998Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMikoll, J.

We agree with the majority that summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Mark Development Company should be granted. In our view, however, the remaining defendants are also entitled to summary judgment in that plaintiff has failed to raise a question of fact that their negligence caused her to fall in the Price Chopper supermarket. Plaintiffs own pretrial testimony indicates that she is unable to say what caused her to fall as she entered the aisle. Her most affirmative statement is that she assumed she tripped over a two-foot high orange-colored warning cone placed to the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hatch v. Rog Glo, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API