From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kraus v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1999
262 A.D.2d 35 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 3, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.).


In light of the discrepancy between the deposition testimony of defendant A P's deposition witness and the incident report prepared at its instigation., there remains a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of the alleged defective condition to which plaintiff, attributes her accident and injury. Defendant American Revolving Door's deposition witness did not have sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts to eliminate that factual issue. Accordingly, since the record evidence does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants were without actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint were properly denied ( see, Giambrone v. New York Yankees, 181 A.D.2d 547, 548).

Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Kraus v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1999
262 A.D.2d 35 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Kraus v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Case Details

Full title:RHODA KRAUS, Respondent, v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 3, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 35 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 590