From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryder v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-05798

Submitted November 28, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated June 7, 2001, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Kennedy Associates, Uniondale, N.Y. (Christopher F. Mansfield of counsel), for appellant.

Gacovino, Lake Associates, P.C., Sayville, N.Y. (Warren Luccitti of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly cut a finger on his right hand when he grabbed a jar of relish from a shelf located in a supermarket operated by the defendant. The subject jar was allegedly "sticky" and had little splinters of glass attached to its side. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to strike the defendant's answer for its alleged failure to comply with certain discovery demands, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not create the alleged defect or have actual or constructive notice of it (see, Licatese v. Waldbaums, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 429; Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 272 A.D.2d 585).

Although the plaintiff, in opposition to the cross motion, submitted deposition testimony establishing, inter alia, that the supermarket manager stated that a case containing the subject jar could have fallen during shipment, that assertion was both speculative and conclusory, and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Klein v. King Kullen Grocery Co., supra).

Accordingly, the complaint should have been dismissed.

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ryder v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Ryder v. King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMIE RYDER, respondent, v. KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., appellant

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Lupowitz v. Fogarty

He testified that the plaintiff was traveling on a roadway controlled by a yield sign, so that it was his…

Franklin v. Omni Sagamore Hotel

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or…