From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campanaro v. Arizona Lipnob Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1999
259 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 15, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing complaint insofar .as asserted against the defendant Arizona Lipnob Estates, Inc., is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company, d/b/a Food Emporium, is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against that defendant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

Since the record establishes that the allegedly defective condition over which the plaintiff tripped and fell was readily observable by a reasonable use of one's senses, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see, Moran v. County of Dutchess, 237 A.D.2d 266; Perez v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 223 A.D.2d 628; Zaffiris v. O'Loughlin, 184 A.D.2d 696).

S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Campanaro v. Arizona Lipnob Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1999
259 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Campanaro v. Arizona Lipnob Estates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PHYLLIS CAMPANARO, Respondent, v. ARIZONA LIPNOB ESTATES, INC., Defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 15, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 493

Citing Cases

Sandler v. Patel

Initially, we note that the defendant's contention that the defective condition was open and obvious was…

Perez v. Ventura

( Pulka v Edelman, supra). Counsel also argues that plaintiff was negligent in attempting to walk over the…