From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irons v. Four T. Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 2002
293 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10060

Argued March 25, 2002.

April 22, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 26, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendant Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc., d/b/a Edwards Super Food Store for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

William F. Farrell (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellant.

Torino Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Christine M. Capitolo and Eva Tompkins of counsel), for respondents.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff tripped and fell after his foot got caught on what he described as a detached portion of a "rubber bumper." The rubber bumper was part of a long, narrow strip of rubber which was wrapped around the circumference of a circular brick planter located next to the supermarket operated by the defendant Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc., d/b/a Edwards Super Food Store (hereinafter Mayfair).

We agree with the Supreme Court that Mayfair was entitled to summary judgment. The affidavit of the supermarket manager asserted that Mayfair had no actual notice of the detached rubber bumper prior to the accident, and that the manager observed the detached rubber bumper at some unspecified point after the accident, whereupon it was immediately removed. This affidavit, together with the other evidence submitted in support of the motion, demonstrated an absence of notice as a matter of law. In opposition to this prima facie showing, the plaintiff had the burden of producing evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Campbell v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 257 A.D.2d 642). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden.

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Irons v. Four T. Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 2002
293 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Irons v. Four T. Associates

Case Details

Full title:WALTER IRONS, appellant, v. FOUR T. ASSOCIATES, LLC, defendant, MAYFAIR…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

Rivas v. 525 Building Co.

This did not warrant the denial of that branch of the third-party defendant's motion which was for summary…

Kraeling v. Leading Edge Electric

The Rosenbergs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they…