From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 9, 1999

September 27, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated July 13, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 21, 1998, which dismissed the complaint.

Rovegno Taylor, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Robert B. Taylor of counsel), for appellants.

Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry Girvan, Mineola, N Y (Anne M. Gremillot of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised an appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).

In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to show that a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant either created the condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall or had actual or constructive notice thereof ( see, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; Albano v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 555; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590). The plaintiffs' assertions are based upon mere speculation, which is insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion ( see, Perrone v. Waldbaum, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 517; Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gardner v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD GARDNER, et al., appellants, v. WALDBAUM'S SUPERMARKET, INC.…

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
695 N.Y.S.2d 606

Citing Cases

Stancarone v. Waldbaums Inc.

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to offer evidence to support his contention that the…